DPP v Harford
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Gerard Hogan |
| Judgment Date | 28 January 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] IECA 8 |
| Docket Number | CCA265-13 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Ireland) |
| Date | 28 January 2015 |
[2015] IECA 8
THE COURT OF APPEAL
Finlay Geoghegan J., Peart J, Hogan J
CCA265-13
Crime & sentencing – Sentencing – Explosive substances – Possession of – Appeal against sentence
Facts: The appellant ad been convicted of a offence under the Explosive Substances Act 1883, after pleading guilty, He now appealed against the length of his sentence.
Held by Hogan J, the other Justices concurring, that the Court at first instance had fallen into error in two respects, Firstly, the sentencing judge appeared to dismiss the need for a probation report at the same time as criticising a lack of evidence to support the claim the appellant was maturing. Secondly, the sentence itself did not reflect the less powerful nature of the explosive device compared to conventional explosives.
The appeal was therefore allowed.
The applicant pleaded guilty before the Circuit Court on 19th July 2013 to a single court of possession of a explosive substance contrary to s. 4 of the Explosive Substances Act 1883 (as amended)(‘the 1883 Act’). The sentencing judge imposed a sentence of eight years imprisonment with the final two years suspended. The present appeal is against the severity of the sentence as so imposed.
At the conclusion of the hearing the Court announced that the appeal would be allowed, with the reasons to be given later. The reasons for that decision are now contained in this judgment.
Background facts
The background to the present appeal is as follows: Mr. Harford was a front seat passenger in a vehicle stopped by Gardaí at a routine checkpoint in Ballyfermot, Dublin 10, on 5th November 2010. The Gardaí proceeded to conduct a search of the vehicle pursuant to the provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977. As a result, a glass jar with a wick was discovered in the passenger footwell where Mr. Harford had been sitting. On forensic examination the jar was found to have potassium nitrate and potassium perchlorate. The Garda evidence at the sentencing hearing was that this jar represented a form of a viable blast incendiary device.
Following this discovery the applicant was abusive to Gardaí and had to be restrained. He was then arrested. He originally denied all knowledge of this matter. There was, moreover, no forensic evidence to link him with the incendiary device. There was, however, a strong smell of petrol from the device in the car. A trial date was originally obtained, but the applicant later pleaded guilty in advance of the trial. The applicant has one hundred and forty previous convictions. While these convictions are mainly for public order offences, they also include convictions for possession of knives and drugs. The applicant was just nineteen at the time of the offence. The sentencing judge took account of the help which the applicant ultimately gave to the Gardaí and the fact that the plea was of assistance. These mitigating factors were counter balanced by the applicant”s aggressive behaviour and the gravity of the crime, the denials by the accused of his involvement and the very large number of previous convictions.
The appellant advanced effectively two separate grounds of appeal. First, it was said that the learned trial judge failed to have sufficient regard to the applicant”s age at the time of the commission of the offence and what was said to be his growing maturity. It was also contended that a lengthy sentence of this kind would effectively lead to his institutionalisation as a prisoner, given that he had already spent significant periods of his young adult life in custody. Second, it was submitted that the sentence was, in any event, too severe. We propose to consider these arguments in turn.
The age and maturity of the accused
The applicant was born on 24th October 1991, so...
To continue reading
Request your trial