The Court of Appeal has dismissed Michael Gleeson’s appeal against the severity of a 10-year sentence for a burglary in which a householder was seriously injured. The court also rejected his argument that the sentencing judge had allowed too little for mitigation.
Gleeson pleaded guilty to burglary on a “full facts” basis. The sentencing court imposed 10 years in prison, with the final two years suspended subject to conditions. Three related counts—assault causing harm, two counts of threatening to kill and threatening to damage property—were taken into consideration. Gleeson was not tried or convicted on those counts.
The Court of Appeal said the burglary involved entering the home to assault the householder, Paul Kelly. The court heard that Gleeson kicked in the door, assaulted Kelly, left and returned to assault him again. Kelly suffered fractures to his eye sockets, nose and jaw, damage to his teeth and required several operations. Kelly, his wife and his sister-in-law described lasting fear and trauma in victim impact reports.
Gleeson’s appeal argued that the sentencing judge’s 12-year headline sentence was too high and that the 10-year sentence did not sufficiently reflect his guilty plea, remorse, personal difficulties and rehabilitation efforts. His counsel cited another burglary appeal and sentencing guidance from England and Wales.
The Court of Appeal distinguished the earlier Irish case, saying the offending here was more serious: the burglary was committed with the intention of assault, involved a second entry and assault, and caused more serious physical injuries. The court also said the sentence reflected the related offences taken into consideration. It considered the English case of *R v Saw* of little assistance because sentencing structures differ between jurisdictions.
The appeal court found that the case belonged in the highest range for burglary sentences, which it described as nine to 14 years before mitigation. It said the sentencing judge’s 10-year starting point could not legitimately be criticised. Although the mitigation discount was “not generous”, the court found it remained within the judge’s discretion. It dismissed both grounds of appeal and the appeal against sentence.