The Court of Appeal reduced the sentences imposed on Thomas Wall, James Cash and William Wall for their involvement in burglaries in Cork City, replacing the original seven-year terms with four-year sentences.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 9 June 2015, the court allowed the appeals against the severity of sentence. It set aside the Cork Circuit Court sentences. Thomas Wall and William Wall each received four years’ imprisonment, with two years suspended. Cash received four years, with the final 20 months suspended.
The Circuit Court had imposed seven years on each man. It suspended two years for the Walls and one year for Cash. The Court of Appeal said the Circuit Court had erred by taking seven years as its starting point. It considered four years an appropriate starting sentence, while stressing that burglary involving entry into a dwelling is serious and can carry a risk of violence, even when the house is unoccupied.
The appeal court noted that the Walls had no significant relevant previous convictions. William Wall, then 30, had three public-order convictions and had not previously been in custody. Thomas Wall also had no significant previous convictions. The court left the two-year suspension provisions in place for them, noting that they were effectively first offenders and would be experiencing custody for the first time.
Cash had 37 previous convictions between 2005 and September 2013, including burglary and possession of articles for use in burglary. The court agreed that his record required a distinction from the other two appellants. However, it said it was sentencing as of the appeal hearing and considered material submitted on behalf of all three. In Cash’s case, that included a letter from Martin Quigley, described in the judgment as a shopkeeper and farmer who also operated a horse-and-carriage business for local tourists during summer. The court said the letter supported a lesser distinction than would have been appropriate at the original sentencing hearing, but maintained some difference because of Cash’s record.
The judgment records the sentence appeals’ outcome. It does not set out the full background to the burglaries, which the court said had been covered in an earlier written judgment dated 15 May 2015.