The Court of Appeal dismissed James Cash’s appeal against the severity of sentences imposed for endangerment, burglary and related offences. It found no error of principle in the sentencing judge’s approach. The court considered whether to increase the prison sentence but decided against doing so after submissions from Cash’s counsel.
Cash was sentenced in Dublin Circuit Court on 14 March 2014 in two sets of cases. For two endangerment counts arising from a dangerous drive on 19 February 2013, he received concurrent six-year prison sentences, with the final 18 months suspended for three years on conditions. He was also disqualified from driving for 20 years after driving while disqualified. The court took 17 other road traffic offences into account.
The Court of Appeal’s judgment described the drive as involving speeds of about 100km/h on roads with a 50km/h limit, cars swerving to avoid him, and travel the wrong way onto the M50. The vehicle collided with three cars before flipping and breaking apart. Victim impact statements described injuries, psychological effects and disruption to family activities. The judgment also recorded that Cash suffered serious injuries and was unlikely to have survived without Garda assistance at the scene.
The second set of offences arose from a burglary and attempted burglary on 28 April 2013, damage to both properties, possession of housebreaking articles and resisting a Garda during arrest. Cash received concurrent prison sentences of four and a half years for burglary and attempted burglary, three and a half years for possession of the articles and nine months for resisting arrest. Those sentences were concurrent with one another and with the sentences in the first case.
Cash argued that the sentencing judge had made errors concerning the length and suspension of the endangerment sentences, mitigation, aggravating factors and the 20-year driving disqualification. For the burglary offences, he argued that the vacant premises, guilty pleas and reports submitted on his behalf had not been given sufficient weight. The respondent submitted that the judge had properly weighed aggravating and mitigating factors and imposed proportionate sentences.
The appeal court said the sentencing judge had carefully considered the relevant factors, including the guilty pleas and rehabilitation material. It concluded that no error of principle was disclosed. Although it said it had considered imposing a greater sentence in light of the serious facts and Cash’s record, it did not increase the sentence. The appeal was dismissed.