The Court of Appeal has dismissed Trevor Harlowe’s appeal against the severity of a six-year sentence for burglary, with the final two years suspended for five years.
The ex tempore judgment, delivered by Edwards J. on 21 March 2022, said the trial judge’s nine-year headline sentence was high and “probably at the outer limits” of what the case merited, but was not outside the range. The appeal court found no error of principle in the sentence imposed.
Harlowe pleaded guilty on the scheduled trial date, 2 July 2019, to one count of burglary. The judgment said CCTV showed him entering a student residence at No. 107 Dunaras, Bishop O’Donnell Road, Salthill, twice in the early hours of 2 August 2018. Two occupants reported that their wallets and mobile phones had been taken. No property was recovered.
A third occupant, Bronwen Kircher, told the sentencing court that the burglary had profoundly affected her. Although nothing was taken from her, she described fear, disrupted sleep and repeated checks that her home was locked. She said she later moved to a dwelling with additional security measures.
The sentencing court had reports describing Harlowe’s long history of drug and alcohol addiction, 53 previous convictions, including 11 for similar matters, and missed methadone appointments. A probation report assessed him as at high risk of reoffending; an updated report said he was not then suitable for probation supervision. The Court of Appeal noted that the formal medical report sought by the sentencing judge was not available, and said it had not been provided with the contents of a note from a doctor.
Harlowe’s lawyers argued that the nine-year headline sentence was too high and that rehabilitation had not been given sufficient weight. The prosecution submitted that aggravating factors included the occupied home being burgled at night, the impact on an occupant, the unrecovered property and Harlowe’s record. It also argued that the late guilty plea offered little mitigation because witnesses had travelled from abroad for the scheduled trial.
The appeal court said the sentencing judge had reduced the headline sentence by one third to six years, a generous allowance in light of the late plea and previous convictions. It rejected the rehabilitation argument, finding that the further two years suspended, with 12 months’ post-release probation supervision, was structured and justified by the evidence before the sentencing court. The court dismissed the appeal.