The Court of Appeal dismissed a Director of Public Prosecutions application to review as unduly lenient the sentence imposed on Michael Farrell for four arson offences and two counts of unauthorised interference with a vehicle.
The application concerned a sentence imposed on 19 October 2018, after a Circuit Criminal Court trial that ended on 18 July 2018. Farrell was sentenced to four and a half years in prison, with the final 18 months suspended on terms. The appeal court delivered its judgment on 30 April 2019.
The offences arose from two incidents in Dublin 7. On 11 January 2017, three cars were set alight at Tomar Court in Palatine Square. The judgment says the fire caused extensive vehicle damage and residents of the estate had to be evacuated. A week later, Gardaí observed Farrell setting alight a rubbish bag on the North Circular Road and followed him to Cavalry Row, where he was seen in a vehicle that was shortly afterwards set alight.
Farrell made no admissions about either incident. He accepted that he appeared on CCTV showing a man entering the Tomar Court estate, but denied involvement in the fire. He pleaded not guilty. A jury returned unanimous guilty verdicts on all counts on the indictment.
The DPP argued that the six-year headline sentence did not reflect the seriousness of the offending, the risk to residents, the impact on victims, the premeditated conduct and Farrell’s previous convictions. It also argued that the sentencing judge gave excessive weight to mitigating circumstances, including psychological difficulties and substance dependency, and failed to address deterrence.
For Farrell, counsel submitted that the sentence reflected both the offences and his circumstances, including low cognitive ability following an acquired brain injury and a longstanding drug problem. Counsel also argued that imprisonment, with part of the term suspended, served as a deterrent.
The appeal court described the offences as serious and the sentence as lenient. It noted the significant impact on victims and said Farrell’s previous convictions reduced the mitigating value of testimonials. The court considered that the sentencing judge had applied the correct legal principles and imposed a sentence within the available discretionary range. It was not satisfied that the sentence was so unduly lenient as to justify appellate intervention, and dismissed the DPP’s appeal.