The Court of Appeal ruled that a Circuit Court judge had erred by suspending part of a firearm sentence, reducing the time to be served below the statutory five-year minimum without finding exceptional and specific circumstances that would make the minimum unjust.
The ruling came in a review application brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993. The respondent, Daniel Prenderville, had received a six-year sentence for possessing a firearm in suspicious circumstances. The last 18 months were suspended. The court said the effective sentence of four and a half years could not stand.
The Court of Appeal allowed the application and said the error required its intervention. It did not impose a replacement sentence at this stage. Instead, it said it would hear any further submissions and consider additional material before sentencing, following the procedure in DPP v Cunningham.
The offences arose after gardaí on patrol in Daletree Place, Ballyconnell, saw an Audi A3 enter an estate without front registration plates. The three occupants wore balaclavas. When a patrol car activated its lights, the Audi rammed it. Prenderville, identified as the driver, fled and was apprehended. Another occupant was seen throwing an object over a wall; a search found a semi-automatic pistol with a silencer, three rounds in its magazine and another in the chamber. Its serial number had been removed. The Audi had been stolen earlier that day.
The Circuit Court had also imposed concurrent sentences of three years for unlawful use of a mechanically propelled vehicle and six months for dangerous driving. A separate ammunition count was taken into consideration. The sentences were to run from 1 February 2013, and Prenderville was disqualified from driving for five years from that date.
The appeal court considered the firearm offence to be near the top of the range, citing the loaded semi-automatic pistol, silencer, removed serial number, disguises and recently stolen car. It also noted mitigating matters raised at sentencing, including a guilty plea, personal circumstances and evidence of efforts towards rehabilitation. The alleged drug debt and threats said to be connected with it had been canvassed as submissions, but the court record stated there was no actual evidence on that issue.
The court held that a sentence below the minimum to be served was permissible only if exceptional and specific circumstances had been identified. The original judge had not made that finding. The January 2015 ruling therefore resolved the review application’s challenge to the suspended portion, while leaving the appropriate replacement sentence for a later sentencing step.