The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed a Director of Public Prosecutions application to increase the sentence imposed on Derrick Stronge for dangerous driving causing death. The court held that the two-year sentence, with the final 12 months suspended, did not amount to undue leniency warranting review under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993. Stronge was also disqualified from driving for 10 years.
Stronge pleaded guilty to the dangerous driving charge. A separate charge of driving while under the influence of alcohol was discontinued. The sentencing judge imposed the sentence in November 2010. The DPP argued that it was too lenient, pointing to the death of Patrick McDonagh, alcohol in Stronge’s blood, previous convictions, deterrence and the impact on McDonagh’s family.
The fatal crash happened in the early morning of 2 March 2009 at Grangecuffe, Cuffesgrange, Kilkenny. Stronge, then 18, was driving a car carrying McDonagh and another passenger. The car crossed to the opposite side of the road, struck a tree and a boundary wall, and stopped across the road. McDonagh died at the scene.
The court said the investigating team attributed the crash to driver error. A blood test recorded 99mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood, above the then legal limit of 80mg. Stronge said he swerved after seeing an animal; the gardaí could neither substantiate nor disprove that account. The appeal court said the sentencing judge was entitled to treat the explanation as a possibility. It noted there was no evidence of mechanical failure and no suggestion that speed itself contributed to the crash.
In its review, the court said the DPP had to show a substantial or gross departure from an appropriate sentence and an error of principle. Disagreement with the sentence, or a view that a higher sentence would have been imposed at trial, was not enough. The court considered the aggravating circumstances, including the death and Stronge’s previous convictions, alongside mitigation such as his guilty plea, cooperation, youth, remorse and psychological condition following the crash.
The court also addressed the family impact material. It said the statutory provisions for victim impact statements did not cover this offence. The appeal court nevertheless considered the statement on a “without prejudice” basis because it had been before the sentencing court; it said it was not legally required to do so.
The court concluded that the sentencing judge had considered relevant matters and had not made an error of principle. It dismissed the application, leaving the original sentence and driving disqualification in place.