The Court of Appeal has dismissed Eamon Murphy’s appeal against his sentence for aggravated burglary, leaving in place a 10-year prison term with the final three years suspended.
Murphy was convicted by a jury at Longford Circuit Criminal Court in February 2015 of aggravated burglary and unlawfully taking a mechanically propelled vehicle. He received the 10-year sentence for aggravated burglary in October 2015, alongside a concurrent one-year term for taking the vehicle. His earlier appeal against conviction was dismissed in October 2016. The present appeal concerned sentence only.
The offences arose from a break-in at a home in Ballymahon, Co Longford, in July 2011. The judgment said the occupants were asleep when Murphy entered with others. One occupant, Mr Higgins, was confronted with a knife, threatened, and had the blade held against his throat. The group left in his Mercedes, taking household items and a wallet containing €100. The car was later found burnt out near Strokestown, Co Roscommon. A bloodstain at the rear door was evidence connecting Murphy to the crime.
Murphy argued that the sentencing judge had given too little weight to mitigation, too much weight to aggravating factors, and imposed an excessive sentence. His counsel relied particularly on Murphy’s role as a near full-time carer for his partner, who has Addison’s disease and epilepsy, and the needs of their four school-age children. One child, aged nine, has a serious hearing difficulty requiring additional care.
The Court of Appeal described the offending as very grave, citing the armed entry into a family home at night, threats to kill, the impact on the occupants and the absence of restitution. It noted that the sentencing judge had treated the previous convictions as having limited significance. The judge had also recognised the family’s likely hardship and asked that relevant agencies be alerted so the family could receive support.
The appeal court said the 10-year headline term might be high to a degree but was within the sentencing judge’s discretion and involved no error of principle. It considered the three-year suspended portion a reasonable allowance for the family hardship, given the absence of another significant mitigating factor. The court said a greater reduction might have made the sentence lenient or arguably unduly lenient. It dismissed the appeal.