The Court of Appeal has dismissed Amanda Hayes’s appeal against the severity of a three-year prison sentence, finding no error of principle in the sentencing judge’s assessment of mitigation or decision to suspend the final six months.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice MacGrath on 6 March 2025, concerned sentences imposed in the Circuit Criminal Court in Limerick on 12 April 2024. Hayes had pleaded guilty on a full-facts basis to two counts of possessing stolen property and one count of possessing certain articles. The third count was taken into consideration. The two prison sentences ran concurrently, with the final six months suspended.
The offences arose from a search of a car in the car park of Barry’s Shop in Ardnacrusha, County Clare, on 6 May 2021. Gardaí found stolen property in the back seat and boot. The property included items taken in burglaries at homes belonging to the Storan and Madigan families. Hayes was not charged with those burglaries. The judgment says much of the property was returned, though some items were not recovered.
The sentencing judge set a four-year headline sentence, then reduced it to three years to account for mitigation. He referred to Hayes’s previous convictions, her guilty plea and acceptance of responsibility, and her addiction. The court heard that she had 113 previous convictions, including 58 theft offences. It also heard evidence about addiction treatment, her family circumstances, and the effects of the burglaries on the two families.
On appeal, Hayes argued that the sentence was excessive and that a larger part should have been suspended to support rehabilitation. The Court of Appeal said the four-year headline sentence was within the sentencing judge’s discretion. It found the judge had considered the mitigating factors, including Hayes’s addiction and domestic circumstances, and was not persuaded that the three-year sentence was disproportionate.
The appeal court also reviewed probation reports and a letter from the Ana Liffey Drug Project. It noted that Hayes had made some efforts to engage with probation services but had not been consistent, and that the probation officer did not recommend further supervision at that time. The court concluded that the sentencing judge had considered her intention to reform and had not exceeded his discretion by suspending six months rather than a greater portion. It dismissed the appeal.