The Court of Appeal quashed sentences imposed on Kean Doherty for burglary and unlawful use of a mechanically propelled vehicle, finding that the sentencing judge gave insufficient weight to serious aggravating factors or too much weight to limited mitigation.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Hedigan on 2 March 2017, followed an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993. The court said it would re-sentence Doherty.
Doherty had pleaded guilty to the offences. The burglary took place in the early hours of 13 April 2016, when he and an accomplice entered Ms Howard’s home while she slept upstairs and took property including her handbag and car keys. The keys were used to steal her Volkswagen Polo.
Gardaí pursued the stolen car and a Hyundai for five kilometres at speeds of up to 170kph, with red lights broken. The Hyundai crashed through a bridge wall at Celbridge into a river; the Polo followed and landed upright. Garda Gerard Smith rescued and arrested Doherty. The court said the chase could have caused the deaths of Gardaí or innocent members of the public.
At the time of sentencing, Doherty had 33 previous convictions, including five for burglary. He was 17 when the offences occurred and 18 when sentenced. A probation and welfare report assessed him as being at high risk of re-offending. The sentencing judge had identified the seriousness of the offences as aggravating factors and his early plea, drug addiction, youth, rehabilitation efforts and supportive parents as mitigation.
The DPP argued that the sentences were unduly lenient, individually and overall. Doherty’s side submitted that the prosecution had not shown the substantial departure required for the Court of Appeal to intervene, and relied on his youth, guilty plea and rehabilitation prospects.
The original terms were two and a half years for burglary, with one and a half years suspended, and one and a half years for unlawful use of the vehicle, with six months suspended. They had been backdated to 13 April 2016 and were concurrent with each other and other detention sentences. The judgment said they added three months and seven days to his time in custody.
The Court of Appeal ordered two years and six months’ imprisonment on count one, with the final one year and nine months suspended for two years on the same conditions. On count two, it imposed one year and six months, with the final nine months suspended for two years on the same conditions. The two sentences are to be consecutive, but concurrent inter se. The judgment does not set out further orders on the other counts.