Judgment: 2015-07-06 · Court archive

Court of Appeal suspends final 18 months of burglary sentence

The court upheld a six-year sentence but suspended its final 18 months, citing specific mitigating factors including the appellant’s isolation in prison.

The Court of Appeal ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Vasile Stratan (Appellant)
  • The President
What

The court upheld a six-year sentence but suspended its final 18 months, citing specific mitigating factors including the appellant’s isolation in prison.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Carrick-on-Suir
When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 26 September 2013

    The ex tempore judgment was delivered by the President on 6 July 2015. The appeal concerned an appellant identified in the judgment as Vasile Stratan, who had been sentenced to six years’ imprisonment after entering a home in Carrick-on-Suir on 26 September 2013. He had originally faced an aggravated burglary charge, but was rearraigned on a simple burglary charge after about three days of trial.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The Court of Appeal upheld a six-year sentence for simple burglary but suspended its final 18 months, after finding that the sentencing judge had not taken account of particular mitigating features.

The Court of Appeal upheld a six-year sentence for simple burglary but suspended its final 18 months, after finding that the sentencing judge had not taken account of particular mitigating features.

The ex tempore judgment was delivered by the President on 6 July 2015. The appeal concerned an appellant identified in the judgment as Vasile Stratan, who had been sentenced to six years’ imprisonment after entering a home in Carrick-on-Suir on 26 September 2013. He had originally faced an aggravated burglary charge, but was rearraigned on a simple burglary charge after about three days of trial.

The court described the crime as very serious. It said the appellant entered the home with another man and that they used violence against occupants who had come downstairs after the break-in. The occupants had minor physical injuries but, the court said, suffered major psychological consequences. The judgment also recorded that the appellant had no previous convictions.

The appellant’s counsel accepted the seriousness of the offence and argued that mitigating factors had not been adequately reflected in the sentence. The Court of Appeal agreed that the sentencing judge had erred in failing to account for three matters: the appellant was not the ringleader; the prosecution had accepted a lesser plea than aggravated burglary, which was relevant to a limited extent; and imprisonment was especially difficult for him because of inadequate language skills and separation from family and friends. The court also said it was conscious of his family circumstances.

With some reluctance, the court left the six-year headline sentence in place and ordered the final 18 months suspended. It stressed that the decision reflected the particular circumstances of this case and the failure to account for the identified mitigating features, especially the appellant’s isolation in prison.

The suspension was conditional on the appellant entering the usual undertaking and bond to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for three years. The court said the sentence otherwise stood.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review