The Court of Appeal dismissed Owen Kirwan’s appeal against the severity of his sentence, finding no error of principle by the sentencing judge. It also clarified that the final two and a half years of his sentence for threatening criminal damage were suspended and would run concurrently with his burglary sentence.
Kirwan had pleaded guilty to burglary and threatening to cause criminal damage. The offences took place in May 2018 at stables beside a private home outside Mullinahone, Co Tipperary. At sentencing, the Circuit Criminal Court imposed seven years for burglary, with the final two and a half years suspended, and five years for the criminal damage offence, to run concurrently.
Evidence at the sentencing hearing was that Kirwan and two others entered the stables at about 1.15am. The homeowner was in a tack room. After the other two men fled, the homeowner caught Kirwan and brought him back inside. The court heard that Kirwan threatened to return with others and burn the homeowner out. He later admitted the offences in interview and apologised. The homeowner’s family experienced significant and ongoing upset and distress, the Court of Appeal said.
The sentencing judge cited the burglary’s planning, the involvement of three people, the impact on the family and Kirwan’s 56 previous convictions, including 13 for burglary. The offences were committed while he was on bail for other offences. In mitigation, the judge considered his guilty pleas, admissions, remorse, personal circumstances and progress in custody, among other matters.
On appeal, Kirwan argued that the headline sentence was excessive, that insufficient weight had been given to mitigation, and that the cumulative time in custody breached the totality principle. The Court of Appeal said the judge had considered the relevant factors and that the reduction from seven years to a four-and-a-half-year custodial term was sufficient. It noted that the earlier sentences imposed in February and July 2019 ran concurrently with each other, while the sentences under appeal had to run consecutively to the July sentence because the offences were committed on bail. The resulting total period in custody was six and a half years from February 2019.
The court said the parties agreed that the intended sentence for the criminal damage offence was five years, with the final two and a half years suspended. Because the Circuit Court order had stated five years without that suspension, the Court of Appeal suspended the final two and a half years and directed that the sentence run concurrently with the four-and-a-half-year burglary term. It then dismissed the appeal.