Judgment: 2025-07-17 · Court archive

Court of Appeal increases sentences over Carlow tanning salon arson

The court found the sentences for the arson unduly lenient and resentenced three men, while leaving sentences on the remaining counts unchanged.

Court of Appeal · [2025] IECA 172

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • P.J. Lyons
  • Keith McCormack Smith
  • Jason Ryle (Respondent)
What

The court found the sentences for the arson unduly lenient and resentenced three men, while leaving sentences on the remaining counts unchanged.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Tip Top Tanning Studio
  • Carlow
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The Court of Appeal has increased the sentences imposed on three men for the arson of a Carlow tanning salon, finding that the sentences for the arson were unduly lenient. It quashed those sentences and resentenced the men; sentences on their other counts remain as imposed by the sentencing judge.

The Court of Appeal has increased the sentences imposed on three men for the arson of a Carlow tanning salon, finding that the sentences for the arson were unduly lenient. It quashed those sentences and resentenced the men; sentences on their other counts remain as imposed by the sentencing judge.

The case arose from an attack shortly before 5am on 17 May 2022, when a stolen Toyota Avensis was rammed into Tip Top Tanning Studio at 97 Tullow Street, Carlow, doused with petrol and set alight. The fire engulfed the ground-floor salon and led to the evacuation of occupied apartments above. The judgment put the monetary damage at about €290,000.

The court said the arson followed a wider sequence of vehicle and fuel thefts between 1 and 4 May and during the night of 16–17 May. It found that Keith McCormack Smith drove the Toyota into the premises, Jason Ryle carried and ignited the accelerant, and P.J. Lyons recorded the arson. The sentencing judge had found that the men acted on orders from other organised crime elements. The Court of Appeal identified planning, the use of several stolen vehicles, the danger to residents, the damage, relevant previous convictions and the fact that each respondent was on bail as aggravating features.

The Director of Public Prosecutions applied for review on grounds of undue leniency, arguing that the sentences did not reflect the gravity of the offences and that too much of each sentence had been suspended. The respondents opposed the application. The Court of Appeal said the DPP had to show a substantial departure from the norm amounting to an error of principle. It concluded that the original sentences for the salon arson failed to reflect the offending’s gravity. It found the suspended portions too large for McCormack Smith and Ryle, but not excessive for Lyons, taking account of his youth.

The court imposed an eight-year sentence on McCormack Smith for the salon arson, with the final year suspended. It said this sentence must run consecutively to an existing cumulative sentence of four years and three months, making a total of 12 years and three months.

Ryle received a seven-year sentence, with the final year suspended, consecutive to the earlier sentence imposed for the offence for which he had been on bail. Lyons received six years and six months, with the final two years suspended. His sentence was backdated to the date it was imposed in the Circuit Court. The Court of Appeal delivered its judgment on 17 July 2025.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review