The Court of Appeal has quashed a sentence imposed on Liam Walsh after finding that the sentencing judge erred by refusing a short adjournment to allow him to obtain evidence about his rehabilitation. The appeal court then re-sentenced him to an aggregate 35 months, suspending the final five months of the sentence on specified conditions.
Walsh had pleaded guilty to five offences: four thefts and escaping from lawful custody. He also asked the sentencing court to take five other counts into consideration: four theft counts and one of possessing stolen property. The Circuit Court had imposed a single 2½-year prison term on one theft count, backdated to 20 October 2017, and taken the other matters into account.
The appeal court rejected a complaint that the sentencing judge had erred by failing to use a recommended structured method of explaining the sentence. It said that failing to follow that best practice did not, by itself, amount to an error of principle. The original sentence appeared very lenient in the circumstances, the court said.
The court upheld the separate complaint about the adjournment. Walsh’s counsel had explained that he had been released unexpectedly about a week before sentencing and had not had time to obtain a report from a drug rehabilitation counsellor. The appeal court said that where potentially relevant mitigating evidence could be produced after a short adjournment, the court should generally lean towards granting it unless there are cogent reasons not to, which should be stated. The sentencing judge gave no reason for refusing the request. The appeal court held that Walsh should have had an opportunity to present the material, including an independent assessment of his rehabilitation efforts, and quashed the sentence.
For the re-sentencing, the appeal court considered reports about Walsh’s prison work, attendance at 35 drug counselling sessions and engagement with prison education services. It assessed each pleaded offence at 12 months before mitigation, adding two months for each offence to reflect five further counts taken into consideration. After allowing six months’ mitigation in each case, it set five individual sentences of eight months. It ordered them to run consecutively, producing 40 months, then reduced that total by five months under the totality principle.
The final five months of the sentence on the escape count were suspended for two years. Walsh was ordered to enter a bond to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, cooperate with the Probation and Welfare Service, and continue engaging with drug rehabilitation services during the remainder of his sentence and after release. The court said the resulting term to be served was 30 months.