Judgment: 2021-07-27 · Court archive

Court upholds 30-month sentence for handling €3,850 stolen lawnmower

Court of Appeal ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • John Gallagher (Appellant)
  • Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
What

Court upholds 30-month sentence for handling €3,850 stolen lawnmower

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Dublin Circuit Criminal Court
  • Naas Circuit Criminal Court
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The Court of Appeal rejected each argument. It held that the offence was properly regarded as falling within the middle range, although at its lower end. The court said the value of the property was relevant but did not by itself determine the appropriate sentence.

The Court of Appeal has upheld a two-and-a-half-year prison sentence imposed on John Gallagher for handling a stolen lawnmower worth €3,850.

The lawnmower had been stolen around 5 or 6 October 2018. Gardaí searched Gallagher’s home under warrant on 9 October and found the machine in his van. Gallagher worked as a landscape gardener. The lawnmower was returned to its owner shortly afterwards.

The Director of Public Prosecutions had initially consented to the charge being dealt with summarily in the District Court, but the District Court declined jurisdiction. Gallagher later pleaded guilty at the first opportunity after being sent forward for trial.

On 13 October 2020, the Circuit Court selected a headline sentence of four years before mitigation and imposed a final term of two-and-a-half years. Gallagher had 16 previous convictions, including four described as theft-related offences. Earlier convictions included handling stolen property in Dublin Circuit Criminal Court in 2013 and theft in Naas Circuit Criminal Court in 2011.

On appeal, Gallagher argued that the offence belonged in the lower sentencing range, that the trial judge had blurred the distinction between handling stolen property and theft, and that part of the sentence should have been suspended to encourage rehabilitation.

The Court of Appeal rejected each argument. It held that the offence was properly regarded as falling within the middle range, although at its lower end. The court said the value of the property was relevant but did not by itself determine the appropriate sentence.

It also found that the sentencing judge had not held Gallagher responsible for the original theft. References to theft in the sentencing remarks did not alter the substance of the sentence imposed for handling stolen property.

Finally, the court found no evidential basis for suspending part of the sentence for rehabilitation. Gallagher had previously received opportunities to rehabilitate, including a suspended sentence.

Finding no error of principle, the court dismissed the appeal.

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