The Court of Appeal resentenced Karl Harford to five years for possessing an explosive substance, suspending the final two years on conditions including completing an alternative-to-violence course while in prison.
The court delivered its judgment on 23 February 2015, after previously allowing Harford’s appeal against the severity of his sentence and seeking probation, prison governor and education reports. It said it had considered all three reports and heard submissions.
Harford had pleaded guilty to possessing an explosive substance contrary to section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act 1883. The judgment says he was found with a viable incendiary device in a relatively small 500-gram jar. He was 19 when the offence was committed on 5 November 2010. The trial judge had sentenced him on 10 December 2013 to eight years, with the final two years suspended.
The Court of Appeal placed the offence at the lower end of the middle range of gravity. It said five years was appropriate before mitigation, and that Harford’s guilty plea merited some credit. The court also considered his 140 convictions by the date of the original sentence.
The reports described both concerns and progress. The probation report assessed Harford as at high risk of reoffending over the following 12 months, citing factors including past illicit substance use, lack of structured activity, education and employment, and anger management issues. The governor said he lacked motivation to address his offending. The judgment also records five prison disciplinary reports: three for prohibited articles and two for assault.
The court noted that Harford was completing a FETAC business qualification, taking part in prison drama activities, attending the gym and had a painting job. It said the reports indicated he was making positive use of his time in custody towards rehabilitation.
The final two years of the five-year sentence were suspended on Harford’s own bond of €200. Conditions require him to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, remain free of illicit substances for the balance of the sentence, and attend levels 1 and 2 of the prison’s alternative-to-violence course while serving this sentence.
The court said a separate five-year sentence for violent disorder, with its final two years and six months suspended on conditions, was consecutive to the sentence it imposed. It said the later sentence meant post-release supervision did not arise under this sentence. The five-year term dates from 10 December 2013, when the trial judge’s sentence began.