DPP v Doyle
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Mahon |
| Judgment Date | 15 December 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] IECA 334 |
| Docket Number | Record No. 128/2017 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Ireland) |
| Date | 15 December 2017 |
[2017] IECA 334
THE COURT OF APPEAL
Mahon J.
Birmingham J.
Mahon J.
Hedigan J.
Record No. 128/2017
Sentencing - Burglary - Mitigation - Appellant seeking to appeal against sentence -Whether sentencing judge failed properly or adequately to consider the appellant's personal circumstances when imposing sentence
Facts: The appellant, Ms Doyle, pleaded guilty and was convicted at Dundalk Circuit Criminal Court on the 7th February 2017 on one count of burglary contrary to s. 14 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001. She was sentenced on the 12th May 2017 to a term of imprisonment of four years, but with the final two years suspended for a period of two years post release. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal against that sentence. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the following errors of principle were identifiable in the sentencing judgment of the sentencing judge. They were: (i) failing to properly or adequately consider all the factors put forward in mitigation of sentence and failing properly or adequately to consider the appellant's personal circumstances when imposing sentence; and (ii) giving excessive weight to the aggravating factors.
Held by the Court that as the sentencing judge was sentencing a first time offender who was a young mother it was appropriate to establish the minimum period of custody to be served which would meet the sentencing objectives; the available range was three years, with perhaps eighteen or twenty one months to be served, up to four years with plus or minus two years to be served. While the sentence imposed fell within the available range, the Court felt that the sentencing judge should, because of the family responsibilities of the appellant, have gone further. The Court therefore identified an error of principle requiring its intervention.
The Court held that, having considered a report from the Grangebellow crèche, the disimprovement in the health of the appellant's mother and the exceptionally positive report from the Prison Governor dated the 11th December 2017, it would re-impose the sentence of four years imprisonment but would suspend the final two years and six months of that term, on similar conditions as were imposed in the Court below; the sentence was to date from the 12th May 2017.
Appeal allowed.
The appellant pleaded guilty and was convicted at Dundalk Circuit Criminal Court on the 7th February 2017 on one count of burglary contrary to s. 14 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001. She was sentenced on the 12th May 2017 to a term of imprisonment of four years, but with the final two years suspended for a period of two years post release. The appellant has appealed against that sentence.
On the afternoon of the 3rd May 2016 an armed robbery took place at Clogherhead Post Office in County Louth, when three men entered the premises. One of the men carried a sledge hammer and used it to break down a door between the convenience store part of the premises and the Post Office part of the premises. A second man was armed with what the Post Office staff understood was a firearm and which he use to enforce his demand for cash, while a third man carried an iron bar and a taser disguised as a mobile phone. The raiders confronted three female staff members in the premises and a sum of �7,074 was handed over. The day of the raid was childrens allowance day when the post office carried substantial cash amounts.
The three man arrived and left in a motor vehicle which was subsequently found burned out in a field some distance away. The appellant's involvement was that she waited for the men in the location where the raider's car was driven to and burned out and then drove the men away to safety. The appellant was later identified as a result of telephone communication and CCTV footage. She was interviewed on six separate occasions by gardai, and ultimately made full admissions in the course thereof.
The appellant had no previous convictions. She was, however, known to the gardai as being associated with known drug users. She herself had a serious cannabis addiction. She received �1,000 from the proceeds of the robbery for her involvement.
The appellant has one child, now approximately four years old, and who is now being cared for by her grandmother. The appellant is estranged from the child's father and was then in a new relationship with another individual. In addition to looking after her young child the appellant was a full time carer of her mother who had, and has, a serious medical condition and is an invalid. Her education was adversely affected because of dyslexia and because of the carer role she undertook in relation to her mother. By the time of sentencing in the Court below the appellant had entered into a drug treatment programme and was drug free.
The three victims of the robbery were very seriously affected and traumatised as a result of their experience. The longer term adverse affects of the incident are, in the cases of all three, very significant.
It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the following errors of principle are identifiable in the sentencing judgment of the learned sentencing judge. They are:-
(i) Failing to properly or adequately consider all the factors put forward in mitigation of sentence and failing properly or adequately to consider the appellant's personal circumstances when imposing sentence.
(ii) Giving excessive weight to the aggravating factors. In particular failing to give any adequate weight to the previous good record of the appellant, her remorse, her undertakings as to future behaviour, her family circumstances, her contributions to society and the compensation offered.
In the course of his sentencing judgment, the learned sentencing judge stated:-
'�I'll certainly give credit to Ms. Doyle, I am not saying that she was the over - the controller or the organiser, but as I have outlined, and it is not necessary for me to state it again, that she was simply the get away driver, that she was willingly involved in the robbery operation and it played a part or link and an important link in the overall context of the robbery.
In respect of count no. 5, the maximum custodial prison sentence is life imprisonment. Then I must decide where this count lies in respect of the maximum sentence and I am satisfied it would be in the - having regard to her involvement, in the middle range, and I will give the headline sentence...
To continue reading
Request your trial