The Court of Appeal has refused a Director of Public Prosecutions application to review as unduly lenient the sentence imposed on Alan Harte for doing an act with intent to impede apprehension or prosecution.
In a judgment delivered on 24 April 2015, the court held that the sentence did not amount to a substantial or gross departure from the appropriate sentence in the circumstances. The application was brought under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993. The court refused it; it did not replace or increase the sentence.
Harte had been sentenced to six years’ imprisonment, with the final three years suspended subject to conditions, and a three-year post-release supervision order on the same terms. Those conditions included probation appointments, residence at an address agreed with his probation officer, drug testing and treatment requirements, and participation in counselling, training or employment services as directed.
Harte had pleaded not guilty to murdering Peter Gunne, who was killed on 4 January 2009. A jury acquitted him of murder on 31 March 2014 but convicted him of the offence under section 7(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1997. The Court of Appeal noted that the prosecution’s case that Harte committed the killing had been rejected by the jury.
The judgment summarised evidence that, after the killing in a flat in Phibsboro, Dublin, Harte and Kastriot Boza placed Gunne’s body in a car and directed the driver to a lane near Dublin Airport. The body was put in a water-filled trench. Harte gave evidence that Boza committed the killing.
The sentencing judge had considered the offence’s seriousness, victim impact statements and Harte’s personal circumstances. The court noted submissions that Harte’s childhood involved extreme deprivation and neglect, which were also described in reports prepared for the sentencing court.
The Court of Appeal said the sentencing judge had applied proportionality while taking account of rehabilitation. It also described the suspension conditions as onerous and an additional significant sanction. The DPP’s complaint was that part of the suspended sentence should be removed, requiring Harte to serve perhaps a further year or 18 months in prison. The court observed that he had been released and was working in the community under active probation supervision, and considered a return to prison at that point could be disproportionate and possibly counterproductive.
The court concluded that there was no error of principle requiring intervention and refused the application.