The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against sentence by Eric Harcourt, ruling that a four-year term for endangerment was fair, reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.
Harcourt was convicted by a jury in the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court on 2 February 2016 of endangerment and the unlawful use of a mechanically propelled vehicle. He received four years’ imprisonment for endangerment, with the final 18 months suspended on conditions. The vehicle offence was taken into consideration. The sentence was to begin after an earlier four-and-a-half-year sentence, with its final 12 months suspended, imposed in December 2015. The judgment said the resulting cumulative custodial term was six years.
The appeal concerned sentence only. Harcourt’s separate appeal against conviction had been dismissed in March 2017. His sole ground was that the sentencing judge had failed to apply the principles of totality and proportionality. Counsel argued that the headline sentence of seven and a half years was at the highest level and that no one was injured. He also submitted that rehabilitation had not received sufficient consideration.
The offences arose in Darndale in the early hours of 23 September 2014. According to the judgment, gardaí in an unmarked car saw a vehicle parked in a cul-de-sac with its lights on. As one garda approached, the driver accelerated, brushed against him and drove away. The garda was not injured. The judgment said the prosecution evidence against Harcourt was identification evidence from three gardaí.
The Court of Appeal said the sentencing judge had been entitled to consider the risk of harm and the circumstances in which the garda escaped injury. It noted that Harcourt was 21 at sentencing, had 67 previous convictions, many involving car theft and road traffic offences, and had ADHD and a difficult childhood. The court also recorded that he had been on bail for the earlier offences when the appealed offences occurred.
The court said the sentencing remarks showed that totality and proportionality had been considered. It described the offending and previous record as serious and said a four-year sentence was not unreasonable. It concluded that no error of principle had been established and dismissed the appeal. The sentence therefore remained in place.