The Court of Appeal has replaced the application of the Probation of Offenders Act in a firearm and assault case with a three-year prison sentence, suspended subject to conditions including payment of €30,000 compensation.
The court ruled that the original disposal was an error of principle and unduly lenient. It said the case was too serious for the Probation Act and that a significant custodial sentence had to be considered, despite Patrick Friel having no previous convictions and an exemplary character. The court said a significant sentence of about three years was appropriate, with the greater part capable of suspension.
Friel had pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm without a certificate and assault causing harm. A third count of endangerment was discontinued by a nolle prosequi, although the court said it was addressed on a full-facts basis.
The case arose from a dispute between Friel and his neighbour, Patrick Sweeney, over a claimed right of way along a laneway owned by Friel. The prosecution case was that Friel approached Sweeney while he was clearing an obstruction with a digger and aimed a legally held shotgun at him. Friel admitted bringing the loaded shotgun to the scene in temper and intending to frighten Sweeney, but said it discharged accidentally. A ballistic report indicated it could not discharge accidentally if its safety catch was engaged. Sweeney suffered pellet-fragment injuries to his face and eye.
The sentencing judge had applied the Probation of Offenders Act to both counts after the parties settled related civil proceedings. The Court of Appeal noted that the Act requires the offender to enter a recognisance, which had not happened. It agreed with the Director of Public Prosecutions that the case was not suitable for the Act. The appeal court resentenced Friel; it did not restore the original disposal.
The court imposed three years’ imprisonment and suspended the sentence subject to keeping the peace and being of good behaviour, avoiding contact with Sweeney and his family, and paying €30,000 within a specified timeframe. The source does not state that timeframe. If payment is not made on time, the prison sentence must be served.
Sweeney told the court he wanted to pursue compensation through the civil proceedings and did not want a criminal compensation order. The appeal court nevertheless ordered compensation, saying it wanted payment within a defined timeframe. It said the order did not prevent the civil case continuing and that any amount paid under the criminal order would be credited against a later successful civil award.