The Court of Appeal has kept a five-year prison sentence for a series of offences near Dublin Airport but increased the suspended portion from 12 months to two years and six months.
In a judgment delivered on 17 November 2016, the court said the five-year sentence was appropriate. It found an error in principle in the sentencing judge’s decision to suspend only the final 12 months. The appeal court resentenced the appellant, with the suspended term subject to a €100 bond to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for two years after release, as well as the other conditions imposed by the Circuit Criminal Court. The six-year driving disqualification remains in place.
Petrica Lucaci had pleaded guilty to 11 offences arising from events over several hours on 7 October 2014. The offences included the illegal seizure of a vehicle, assaults, endangerment, attempted seizure of a vehicle by force and dangerous driving. The Circuit Criminal Court imposed sentence on 11 May 2016. It imposed concurrent five-year terms for vehicle seizure and attempted vehicle seizure, with the final 12 months suspended, and took other counts into consideration. A nolle prosequi was entered on one count.
The judgment said Lucaci’s car had broken down on the M50 before he reached the airport on foot. There, he tried to stop one car and threw boots at it. He later assaulted a man at the Terminal 2 set-down area, took his car keys and drove away. During the ensuing journey, he struck a taxi driver, drove through red lights and on the wrong side of the road, and was pursued by Garda cars for about 20 minutes over approximately seven kilometres before being arrested in Ballymun.
The appeal argued that the sentence was excessive and gave insufficient weight to Lucaci’s personal circumstances, guilty plea, remorse, lack of previous convictions, low risk of reoffending and prospects for rehabilitation. The court noted that the sentencing judge had considered those matters, including the illness of Lucaci’s wife and probation reports.
The appeal court described the offending as serious, reckless and involving danger to innocent people, including two children. It said personal stress could not excuse assaults or terrorising members of the public. It nevertheless found that the out-of-character nature of the offending, guilty plea, genuine remorse, compensation offer and low risk of reoffending justified suspending a greater part of the term. The sentence’s commencement date remained that set by the Circuit Criminal Court.