The Court of Appeal allowed Karl Harford’s appeal against the severity of an eight-year sentence, with the final two years suspended, for possession of an explosive substance. It said the sentence was unduly severe and that the sentencing judge had made errors in principle. The judgment does not state the replacement sentence or set out a further order altering the sentence.
Harford had pleaded guilty in the Circuit Court on 19 July 2013 to one count under section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act 1883. He was 19 at the time of the offence. Gardaí found a glass jar with a wick in the passenger footwell of a car stopped at a routine checkpoint in Ballyfermot, Dublin 10, on 5 November 2010. Forensic examination found potassium nitrate and potassium perchlorate. Garda evidence at sentencing described the jar as a viable blast incendiary device.
The judgment said the device was contained in a relatively small 500-gram jar and could endanger life, limb and property if used. The court also said it did not pose the same level of widespread threat to public safety as conventional explosives.
Harford initially denied knowledge of the device, and there was no forensic evidence linking him to it. The judgment records a strong smell of petrol from the device in the car. He later pleaded guilty before trial. The sentencing judge took account of his assistance to Gardaí and the plea, alongside his aggressive behaviour, denials and 140 previous convictions, mainly for public order offences but also including knife and drug possession convictions.
On appeal, Harford argued that the sentencing judge had not given enough weight to his age and growing maturity, and that a lengthy sentence risked institutionalising him after periods in custody. The Court of Appeal said the judge erred by declining to seek a probation report and later criticising the absence of evidence supporting the claim of growing maturity. It said a report could have addressed that issue and concerns about institutionalisation.
The court also found the eight-year term, with two years suspended, too severe for the circumstances. It referred to a previous case involving possession of two pipe bombs, while stressing that the earlier decision did not establish a general sentencing rule. The appeal was allowed after the court had announced that result at the hearing and reserved its reasons for this judgment.