The Court of Criminal Appeal has rejected Wayne Dundon’s application for leave to appeal his conviction for threatening to kill Ryan Lee, but set aside his 10-year sentence and imposed a seven-year term.
Dundon was convicted in the Circuit Criminal Court in Limerick on 20 April 2005 of threatening to kill or cause serious harm. The charge concerned an incident at Brannigans, a bar in Limerick city, on 19 December 2004. The prosecution case was that Dundon threatened Lee with words and a gesture, intending Lee to believe the threat would be carried out. Dundon denied that the words or gesture were used.
The appeal court rejected challenges to the trial judge’s decisions to leave the case to the jury and to the directions given on intention and recklessness. It said the CCTV recording did not conclusively establish whether the alleged gesture had been made; that was a matter for the jury to assess alongside Lee’s evidence. The court also refused permission to add two new grounds concerning the judge’s treatment of the gesture and whether Lee had a motive to lie. Those points had not been raised at trial, and the court found no exceptional basis to admit them. Leave to appeal the conviction was refused on all grounds.
The court did, however, find an error in the sentencing judge’s consideration of a shooting of Lee at the same premises shortly after the threat. Dundon had not been charged with or admitted involvement in that shooting, and there was no evidence linking him to it. The appeal court held that it could not properly be treated as part of the circumstances of the threat when setting his sentence.
The court said the sentencing judge was entitled to consider the continuing nature of the threat, the need for Lee to have Garda protection, and Dundon’s relevant previous convictions. It described the offence as serious and said a sentence in the region of eight years was warranted. Taking account of the limited assistance provided by admissions and Dundon’s personal circumstances, it imposed seven years. The appeal court said it was unnecessary to address the remaining sentencing grounds.