The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against a six-year prison sentence imposed on a man who pleaded guilty to two counts of arson in Galway. It held that the sentence was within the range reasonably available to the sentencing judge and found no error of principle.
The appellant was convicted at Galway Circuit Criminal Court on 18 January 2017 and sentenced on 29 March that year. The offences involved two cars burned at the same location on Newcastle Road: a Ford Fiesta on 4 October 2016 and an Opel Corsa the previous night. The judgment says gardaí found the appellant near the burning Fiesta, intoxicated and with a lighter and scissors. He initially denied involvement, then made full admissions without giving a motive or explanation.
The sentencing judge treated the use of scissors to cut the cars’ leather seats and expose their internal material as evidence of premeditation. He assessed the offences as toward the higher end of medium gravity and set a headline sentence of eight years for each. He also considered a probation report that assessed the risk of reoffending as very high and warned of a real risk of harm to others.
On appeal, the appellant argued that the sentencing judge gave too little weight to his guilty plea, remorse, cooperation, alcohol use and stated wish to rehabilitate, and too much weight to aggravating factors. He also challenged the treatment of evidence about the cars’ value and argued that the sentence was excessive. His counsel submitted that a sentence with a substantial suspended element could support treatment or counselling for his fire-starting behaviour. The appeal also referred to improved contact with his son.
The Court of Appeal said the sentencing judge had considered rehabilitation and the lack of a clear indication of how the appellant’s propensity to start fires could be treated. It reviewed later psychological and psychiatric reports, which said he had no mental disorder, identified a high risk of reoffending and did not indicate that earlier release would probably aid rehabilitation. Both identified alcohol as a major factor.
The court noted the appellant’s seven previous arson convictions, alongside the two offences under appeal, and the risk to public safety. It said the sentencing judge had little alternative to a relatively lengthy custodial sentence. The six-year term was “possibly on the high side” but remained within the judge’s reasonable discretion. The court dismissed the appeal.