DPP v Healy
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Patrick McCarthy |
| Judgment Date | 24 June 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] IECA 172 |
| Docket Number | [85/2018] |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Ireland) |
| Date | 24 June 2019 |
[2019] IECA 172
THE COURT OF APPEAL
McCarthy J.
Birmingham P.
Edwards J.
McCarthy J.
[85/2018]
Sentencing – Burglary – Severity of sentence – Appellant seeking to appeal against sentence – Whether sentence was unduly severe
Facts: The appellant, Mr Healy, was charged with one count of burglary contrary to s. 12 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud) Offences Act 2001 and pleaded guilty on the date of trial. He was sentenced on February 15th 2018 to five years’ imprisonment, the last year of which was suspended. The judge determined a headline sentence of seven years’ imprisonment, and after considering mitigation, arrived at sentence of five years’ imprisonment with the final twelve months suspended to incentivise rehabilitation. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, submitting that the trial judge: (1) the trial judge erred in law and in fact in failing to attach appropriate weight to the absence of physical force or criminal damage in entering the complainant’s premises and furthermore the absence of any violence in committing this offence; (2) the judge erred in law and in fact in failing to attach the appropriate weight to the applicant’s early plea of guilty; (3) the judge erred in fact and in law in mischaracterising the nature and extent of the appellant’s previous convictions; (4) the judge failed to attach adequate or sufficient weight that the plea of guilty was entered at the earliest possible opportunity; (5) the judge erred in law and in fact in failing to attach sufficient weight to the evidence favourable to the applicant and concentrated disproportionately on the matter of the offence thereby adopting an unbalanced view of the evidence (all property was recovered); (6) the judge erred in law and in fact in failing to take any or any adequate account of the particular mitigating circumstances of this applicant in the context of this offence; (7) the judge failed to give adequate weight to the prospect of rehabilitation; and (8) the sentence was oppressive and represented a substantial departure from what would be regarded as the appropriate sentence in all of the circumstances of this case.
Held by the Court that the trial judge had regard to all relevant factors in his comprehensive judgment. The Court could not see any error in principle, and held that the sentence imposed was one within the judge’s margin of discretion.
The Court held that the appeal would be dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
The appellant was charged with one count of burglary contrary to section 12 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud) Offences Act, 2001 and pleaded guilty on the date of trial. He was sentenced on February 15th 2018 to five years' imprisonment, the last year of which was suspended. The judge determined a headline sentence of seven years' imprisonment, and after considering mitigation, arrived at sentence of five years' imprisonment with the final twelve months suspended to incentivise rehabilitation.
On Friday July 21st 2017, the appellant and another male entered an apartment the resident of which was not home at the time. A sum of seventy cents was taken from the premises. The Gardaí identified the appellant from contemporaneous webcam footage provided by the injured party. The strength of the evidence is, of course, relevant to the weight to be attached to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial