The Court of Appeal has refused a Director of Public Prosecutions application to review fully suspended sentences imposed on Pearse O’Connor for fraudulent trading and using false instruments. The court said the sentences were unduly lenient, but concluded that imprisonment at this stage, almost nine years after the offending, would not serve the interests of justice.
O’Connor was sentenced in the Circuit Court in Dundalk on 13 January 2022. He received concurrent terms of five years for fraudulent trading and one false-instrument count, and four years for four other false-instrument counts. All terms were suspended for five years. Four further counts were taken into consideration. The sentencing court also disqualified him for life from acting as a company director or secretary.
The Court of Appeal heard that O’Connor had been a director and sales manager of Pearse Roof & Cladding Ltd, which went into liquidation around June 2015. A liquidator’s report led to a Garda investigation into dealings with Keys Commercial Finance Ltd, which provided invoice discount facilities. False company accounts were used to induce Keys Finance into an ongoing funding relationship, and false invoices claimed payment for goods or services that had not been supplied. The court said Keys Finance was defrauded of about €370,000. There had been no restitution.
At sentencing, the judge noted preplanning and sophistication but also considered mitigation, including O’Connor’s guilty plea, remorse, low assessed risk of reoffending, alcohol problems and efforts to rebuild his life. His counsel submitted that the offending was intended to keep the indebted company afloat rather than to benefit O’Connor personally, and sought a non-custodial sentence.
The appeal court said the offending crossed the custody threshold and a non-custodial disposal was not an option. It said that, if sentencing at first instance, it would have started from five years and required 18 months or two years in custody, with the balance suspended. However, it considered the passage of time and evidence of O’Connor’s continuing efforts to reform. The court referred to his employment, work record, steps to address alcohol dependency and role in bringing his children to school.
Acknowledging the need for general deterrence in fraud cases, the court said, with considerable hesitation, that incarcerating O’Connor at this remove would not serve the interests of justice. It therefore refused the Director’s application; it did not replace the Circuit Court sentences with a custodial term.