The Court of Appeal suspended 10 months of Daniel Polanski’s sentence after finding that objective evidence of his efforts to address drug addiction should have been given greater weight. The court varied the sentences imposed below but did not remove the custodial term.
Polanski had pleaded guilty to two counts of possessing articles contrary to section 15 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001. At sentencing on 28 November 2017, he received concurrent terms of three years and three months. The sentencing judge also took two further section 17 counts into consideration.
The appeal arose from items found in Polanski’s car after Gardaí stopped it in Finglas in March 2017. The items included three devices described in evidence as capable of being used as signal jammers, as well as torches, crowbars, a gate buzzer, binoculars, penknives, an iPod and USB keys. The judgment recounted evidence that property had been taken from two cars in January and March that year. One victim described the loss of work files and the need to redo two weeks of accounts; the other did not provide a victim impact statement.
The sentencing judge identified the offending’s seriousness and impact, and Polanski’s extensive record, while also noting his guilty pleas, personal circumstances and engagement with prison addiction services. He had attended counselling sessions and was working in prison. On appeal, his lawyer argued chiefly that the sentence did not sufficiently recognise his rehabilitation efforts. The prosecution submitted that the sentencing judge had considered the relevant mitigating circumstances and that the guilty plea carried less weight because the case against him was strong.
The Court of Appeal said custody could not have been avoided and described the original 12-month reduction from a headline sentence of four years and three months as difficult to challenge on the other mitigating factors. But it concluded that independent evidence supported Polanski’s stated commitment to reform, and that the sentencing judge could and should have done more to encourage those efforts.
The court ordered that 10 months of the sentence be suspended on condition that Polanski enter a bond and remain of good behaviour for two years following his release. It was told that he faced a removal order after release. The court expressly said the partial suspension should not inhibit implementation of that order.