The Court of Appeal has rejected Craig O’Donnell’s appeal against the severity of sentences imposed for aggravated burglary, burglary, possessing a bladed article, robbery and a firearms offence. The court found no error of principle and concluded that the aggregate sentences were proportionate.
O’Donnell had pleaded guilty to three offences on each of two bills of indictment. For offences on the first bill, he received five years for aggravated burglary and three years each for burglary and possessing a bladed article, all concurrent and backdated to 5 December 2015. For robbery and having a firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence on the second bill, he received five years on each count, concurrent with each other but consecutive to the first bill’s sentences. The final 18 months of those sentences were suspended for ten years on conditions. An escape-from-custody charge was taken into consideration.
The appeal concerned offences committed in Limerick in 2014. In one incident, two intruders armed with knives entered a student’s accommodation, took property and €20, and threatened him. In a nearby burglary, O’Donnell was found with a knife after an occupant alerted Gardaí to an intruder. In a separate incident, two men robbed a woman in her parked car, threatening her with what was later identified as an imitation firearm. O’Donnell admitted involvement in the offences. He also attempted to escape while being transferred within Henry Street Garda Station.
The appeal argued that the sentences were excessive given O’Donnell’s age when the offences were committed, his guilty pleas and admissions, remorse, drug problems and efforts toward rehabilitation. It also argued that the sentencing judge had not properly applied the principles of totality and proportionality. The Court of Appeal declined to consider new arguments about the alleged knife being a potato peeler and the accomplice’s treatment, because those matters had not been raised below and there was no application to amend the appeal grounds or introduce further evidence.
The court held that the individual sentences fell within the sentencing judge’s discretion, given the serious aggravating circumstances, including weapons, threats, occupied homes and offending while on bail. It said the judge had taken account of O’Donnell’s youth, guilty pleas, cooperation and remorse. The court considered the effective 18-month reduction sufficient to make the overall sentences proportionate. The judgment’s final sentence is incomplete in the supplied text; the extract does not show the formal order dismissing or otherwise disposing of the appeal.