The Court of Appeal has dismissed Daniel Hogan’s appeal against a five-year sentence, with the final 18 months suspended on terms, for offences including criminal damage, burglary and producing an article capable of inflicting serious injury. The court found no error in principle in the sentence imposed by the trial judge.
Hogan had pleaded guilty to four counts, including two counts of criminal damage. He was sentenced on 5 February 2020. The Court of Appeal heard that he entered his guilty plea on the day set for trial, although the Director of Public Prosecutions had been notified some days earlier.
The offences arose from an incident at Liffey Park, Mayfield, in the early hours of 2 September 2018. Gardaí responding to a report of a man smashing vehicle windows and slashing tyres found a grey Peugeot 206 extensively damaged. Two women outside 11 Liffey Park identified themselves as Elizabeth O’Leary and Shanice O’Leary, a mother and daughter. Shanice O’Leary had previously been in a long-term relationship with Hogan. They identified him as responsible for the car damage and reported that he had entered the house and stood in the hallway brandishing a metal bar, which he later discarded on the green in front of the house.
At sentencing, the judge treated the guilty plea as mitigation and described the offending as very serious. He imposed a five-year sentence for criminal damage and burglary, suspended the last 18 months on terms, and imposed a concurrent two-year sentence for producing the article. The effective custodial term was three and a half years.
On appeal, Hogan argued that the judge had not set out a headline sentence or made the reasoning for the final sentence clear. He also said the sentence was too severe and that the judge had given insufficient weight to his age, previous record, remorse and alcohol problem. He challenged the judge’s description of him as generally domineering and violent, noting that he had no previous convictions for assault or other offences against the person.
The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that the sentencing judge’s reasons were clear, the offending was at the higher end of the scale, and the suspended portion adequately reflected mitigation.
The Court of Appeal said the absence of a headline sentence was not, by itself, fatal, and considered the global sentence. It accepted that the guilty plea was the primary mitigating factor, but noted it was entered late. Although the sentencing judge had not expressly referred to Hogan’s age, the appeal court was satisfied his youth had been incorporated into the sentence. It also found the judge was entitled to assess Hogan’s conduct on the night as evidence of an attitude problem.
The court concluded the sentence was substantial but within the sentencing judge’s margin of appreciation. It dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle.