The Court of Appeal has dismissed Darragh Dunne’s appeal against the severity of his sentence for seven burglaries, finding that a four-year post-mitigation sentence was not too severe and that the sentencing judge made no error of principle.
Dunne pleaded guilty on three bills of indictment before Dublin Circuit Criminal Court. He received 28 months’ imprisonment on each bill, with the sentences running concurrently. The sentencing judge took account of the 14 months Dunne had already spent in custody.
The offences included five burglaries in 2019. Four involved entry to private areas of business premises in Blanchardstown, where nothing was taken. In the fifth, at Gourmet Food Parlour in Swords, €400 was taken. The other two burglaries were at the Abbey Tavern in Howth, where €6,860 and a cheque for €3,156 were taken, and The Town in Leixlip, where cash was taken. The cheque was later cancelled; the cash was not recovered.
Dunne argued that the sentence was disproportionate and that the sentencing judge failed to give adequate weight to rehabilitation and his personal circumstances. The court had heard evidence of his drug treatment, clean urinalysis tests from early 2022, guilty pleas, cooperation and family responsibilities. The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that the offences’ number and seriousness, previous convictions, bail status and features including a confrontation and criminal damage supported the sentence.
The Court of Appeal acknowledged the evidence of Dunne’s rehabilitation and the difficulty of overcoming longstanding addiction. It said, however, that rehabilitation does not necessarily take priority in every case. The sentencing judge had referred to Dunne’s efforts but decided not to suspend the remainder of his sentence.
The appeal court noted seven burglaries, some indicative of a spree, a confrontation in one case, criminal damage and a significant record of previous convictions. It said a headline sentence in the mid-range would have been an appropriate starting point and that reducing it to four years after mitigation could not be shown to be an error. The court did not determine what headline starting figure or mitigation percentage the sentencing judge had used. It dismissed the appeal.