The Court of Appeal has dismissed John Delaney’s appeal against the severity of his sentence for burglary and criminal damage, finding no error in the sentencing judge’s decision to suspend 18 months of his prison term.
The appeal, heard by President Birmingham and Justices Edwards and McCarthy, concerned only whether a greater part of the sentence should have been suspended to encourage Delaney’s rehabilitation. His other appeal grounds were not pursued at the hearing.
A jury found Delaney guilty of burglary and criminal damage after a three-day trial. The offences arose from an incident at a Waterford City home in the early hours of 26 September 2019. The judgment says the occupant, identified as Ms A, and her two children were asleep when she heard people outside. She saw Delaney and another man at the rear of the property and heard kicking at a window and door. She and the children left and went to a Garda station. Garda evidence at sentencing was that Delaney was found coming out of the property with the back-door keys, which Ms A identified as hers. The jury rejected Delaney’s claim that he and Ms A were romantically involved.
The Circuit Criminal Court imposed a four-and-a-half-year term for burglary, suspending the final 18 months for two years after release, and a concurrent one-year term for criminal damage. Both sentences were dated from 28 December 2022, giving an effective custodial term of three years.
Delaney’s appeal focused on rehabilitation. His counsel argued that his efforts to address addiction deserved greater weight. The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that the sentencing judge had carefully considered rehabilitation and that suspending one third of the post-mitigation term was already significant.
In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal acknowledged Delaney’s stated resolve to address alcoholism and substance misuse, and recognised that recovery can involve setbacks. But it said the evidence of progress was limited: he had taken some steps, including engagement with Alcoholics Anonymous, but had not stopped drinking, and his conduct between the offences and sentencing had not given the sentencing judge strong grounds for confidence.
The court said there was a case for encouraging rehabilitation, but Delaney had already received “quite a substantial incentive” through the 18-month suspension. It found insufficient evidence to justify suspending more of the term and concluded that the sentencing judge had made no error of principle. The appeal was dismissed.