The Court of Appeal increased two sentences imposed on Aaron Brady after finding that the original terms for unlawful use of a vehicle and criminal damage were unduly lenient. The appeal arose from a review application brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993.
Brady had pleaded guilty at Dundalk Circuit Criminal Court in October 2012 to nine offences arising from events in the early hours of 2 October 2011. The sentencing judge imposed six months’ imprisonment for unlawful use of a mechanically propelled vehicle, 12 months for criminal damage to a vehicle, with the final six months suspended for 12 months, and six months for dangerous driving. Those terms ran concurrently. The other offences were taken into consideration. The sentences were directed to run from 31 May 2017.
The judgment said Brady drove a stolen blue Volkswagen Golf around Dundalk, colliding with taxis and Garda vehicles and driving through red lights before the car stopped after losing a wheel. He fled and was arrested after a chase. Property damage exceeded €10,000. The court noted the danger to people on the streets and referred to evidence and CCTV considered at the original sentencing hearing.
Brady was 19 at the time of the offences. After pleading guilty, he failed to attend sentencing in April 2013 and fled to the United States. He was deported to Ireland in May 2017, arrested on arrival and sentenced about a week later. The appeal court also considered that he had since married, had an infant child, established a home and employment in New York, and remained out of trouble.
The Court of Appeal said the sentencing judge had properly identified aggravating and mitigating factors, but found the headline sentences for unlawful taking and criminal damage, and the overall net custodial term of six months, were unduly lenient and reflected an error of principle. It said the delay before sentencing was caused by Brady, while also taking account of his circumstances and conduct in the intervening years.
The court resentenced him as of the date of its judgment. It increased the sentences for counts 1 and 3 to two years’ imprisonment each, to run concurrently, suspending the final 12 months of each for two years after release. The suspension was conditional on entering a €100 bond to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The judgment does not state that the other sentences were changed.