DPP v Conroy

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Mahon
• Judgment Date: 12 December 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] IECA 13
• Docket Number: Appeal Number: 223/13
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)
• Date: 12 December 2014

[2014] IECA 13

THE COURT OF APPEAL

Birmingham, J.

Sheehan, J.

Mahon, J.

Appeal Number: 223/13

DPP v Conroy

The People at the Suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions

-v-

Matthew Conroy

Appellant

NO CITATIONS IN THIS JUDGMENT

Sentencing – Consecutive sentences – Severity of sentence – Appellant seeking to appeal against the severity of sentences – Whether the direction of concurrent sentences was an error of principle

Facts: The appellant, Mr Conroy, committed five separate offences in quick succession in 2012, involving the breaking into the home of a Mr Mannix, the taking of his car keys, the theft of his private car, the theft of a small sum of money from the car, and the crashing of the car while being pursued by gardaí, and having, immediately prior to that pursuit, placed Garda Collins at grave personal risk as he, the appellant, attempted to manoeuvre the car in order to make good his escape. The sentences imposed by Nenagh Circuit Criminal Court in 2013 involved one group of three concurrent prison sentences of three years, four years and three years in relation to the theft of money, the burglary of the house and the theft of the car respectively, and a second group of two concurrent prison sentences of three years and two years in relation to the endangerment incident and the crashing of the car, respectively. The trial judge proceeded to direct that both sets of concurrent sentences be served consecutively with the result that the appellant received an effective prison term of seven years, including an eighteen month suspended element. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal against the severity of the sentences on a number of grounds. It was contended that the trial judge erred in principle in relation to certain aspects of the sentencing process. In particular it was contended that the trial judge treated the appellant"s large number of previous convictions as an aggravating factor, rather than the absence of a mitigating factor. It was also submitted that the offences were placed at too great a level on the relative scale of gravity, and that the sentences imposed were excessive. It was submitted that the trial judge misunderstood the evidence relating to the car owner"s financial loss arising from the crash of his car and that, in fact, the owner suffered no financial loss in that he recovered the car"s value from his insurer. It was also submitted that the trial judge"s decision to direct consecutive sentences involved an error of principle in that he failed to give reasons for so doing, and failed to sufficiently take into account that the offences, although involving separate and distinct incidents, were, in reality, part of the one act of criminality on the night in question. It was further submitted that, in their totality, the sentences were unduly harsh. These criticisms were rejected by the DPP who contended that the sentences were reasonable and proportionate, and that the learned trial judge did not err in principle in relation to his approach to, and his actual imposition of, the sentences handed down; the appellant"s plea of guilty, his apology and his difficult background and lifestyle were matters which the learned trial judge clearly considered and accepted were mitigating factors.

Held by Mahon J that the endangerment offence was undoubtedly the most serious and its circumstances certainly justified the sentence of the nature of that imposed. Equally the sentence for the offence arising from the crashing of the car was held to be reasonable and appropriate having regard to the circumstances, and to the appellant"s previous convictions. Mahon J was satisfied that the sentences for the theft of €15 in cash, the burglary offence and the car theft were unduly severe. Mahon J was of the view that the trial judge erred in principle in failing to adequately consider, or give sufficient weight to, the unchallenged evidence provided to the court to the effect that the appellant broke into the house in the belief that it was unoccupied and merely for the purposes of finding a place to sleep, and that he then promptly left on discovering the position to be otherwise. Mahon J held that in the particular circumstances of the case, including the appellant"s plea of guilty, the fact that his previous convictions were for relatively minor offences and also the linked nature of the offences in the case, there was an error of principle on the trial judge"s part in his decision to impose consecutive sentences.

Mahon J held that: in respect of the offence of the theft of the fifteen euros the sentence would be reduced from three years to six...