The Court of Appeal has dismissed John Roche’s appeal against the seven-year prison sentence imposed for possessing explosives in furtherance of the activities of the IRA.
In a judgment delivered on 5 March 2021, the court held that the sentence was proportionate and that the Special Criminal Court had given due weight to the mitigating factors in Roche’s case. The appeal was against the severity of the sentence, not the conviction.
Roche and his co-accused, Mr Brock, were convicted after a four-day trial of possessing an explosive substance, an offence carrying a maximum sentence of 14 years. The explosives—57 kilograms of ammonium nitrate fuel oil and 38 bars of industrial explosive—were found in the boot of Roche’s car. Detonators were found beneath the front passenger seat. The judgment said the offending was not contested as being in furtherance of IRA activities.
The Special Criminal Court sentenced Roche to seven years’ imprisonment. It identified his lack of previous convictions, good character, health difficulties, family and employment testimonials, community contributions and the fact that he did not contest the prosecution evidence as mitigating factors. The court said those circumstances justified a 30 per cent reduction from a ten-year headline sentence.
Roche argued on appeal that his co-accused had been offered a chance to reduce his sentence by undertaking to desist from paramilitary association, while Roche was not offered the same opportunity. Brock had an earlier conviction for firearms and ammunition offences related to IRA activity. His sentence was set at eight and a half years, with the final 18 months suspended after he entered a bond undertaking good behaviour and no paramilitary association for three years after release.
The Court of Appeal said the trial court had correctly sentenced each offender individually. It found that the partial suspension for Brock was intended to support his rehabilitation and commitment to dissociate himself from IRA activity. It said there was no rational basis for suspending any part of Roche’s sentence and no rule requiring co-accused to receive the same or similar treatment. The court dismissed the appeal.