The Court of Appeal has quashed a Circuit Court sentence it found involved an error in principle and resentenced David Healy for arson and attempted deception. It ordered that two years of the seven-year arson sentence be served, with credit for time he had already spent in custody. The court left the fines and the consecutive three-year sentence for attempted deception in place, suspending that sentence in full.
The Director of Public Prosecutions brought the application to review the sentences as unduly lenient. The Circuit Court in Cork had imposed them on 16 July 2018. The Court of Appeal delivered its judgment on 29 April 2019.
A jury convicted Healy of arson after a contested trial. The attempted deception charge had been severed from the arson indictment; Healy pleaded guilty to it after the jury’s verdict. The Circuit Court imposed seven years for arson and three consecutive years for attempted deception, suspending both sentences subject to conditions. Those conditions included fines of €25,000 and €8,000 respectively, payable to the State within a month. The appeal court noted that the fines were paid promptly.
The case arose from a fire at Munster Air Compressors, a commercial premises on Dublin Hill, Cork, on 16 December 2014. The judgment records that the premises belonged to a company controlled by Healy and his father. A fire officer concluded the fire had been deliberately set, citing six separate seats of fire and the use of oil barrels, shredded paper and accelerants. Three fire service units responded.
The attempted deception charge concerned machines valued at €30,000 for insurance purposes that were worth about €2,000, according to the judgment. The Circuit Court judge had also noted that insurance cover for the premises’ contents rose from €50,000 to €350,000 in June 2014.
The Court of Appeal said the arson was carefully planned and premeditated, put firefighters at risk and was a very serious offence. It held that custody was unavoidable despite Healy’s previous good character and lack of relevant convictions. The court described the Circuit Court’s approach to structuring the sentences as unusual and said it would have used a different approach if sentencing at first instance.
In resentencing, the appeal court took account of Healy’s time in custody, the financial penalty already paid, the period during which a suspended sentence had been in operation, and the time elapsed since the offence. It left the seven-year arson term and consecutive three-year deception term in place, but suspended all of the deception sentence and all but two years of the arson sentence. The two-year custodial term is subject to credit for time already served.