DPP v Loughlin

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr. Justice Mahon
Judgment Date03 July 2017
Neutral Citation[2017] IECA 204
Docket NumberRecord Nos. 208 & 209CJA/2016
CourtCourt of Appeal (Ireland)
Date03 July 2017

[2017] IECA 204

THE COURT OF APPEAL

Mahon J.

Birmingham J.

Mahon J.

Edwards J.

Record Nos. 208 & 209CJA/2016

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 2 OF THE CIRMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1993

BETWEEN/
THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
APPELLANT
- AND -
MARK LOUGHLIN

AND

PHILIP PERRY
RESPONDENTS

Sentencing – Reckless discharge of a firearm – Undue leniency – Appellant seeking review of sentences – Whether sentences were unduly lenient

Facts: The respondents, Mr Loughlin and Mr Perry, were charged with a number of offences arising from an incident which occurred in the early hours of the morning of the 19th June 2015 at Clonmoyle, near Monasterevin in Co. Kildare. They pleaded guilty to the offences at Naas Circuit Criminal Court on the 16th and 18th December 2015. In Mr Loughlin’s case there were four offences, namely reckless discharge of a firearm contrary to s. 8 of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act 1990, possession of ammunition in suspicious circumstances contrary to s. 27A(1) of the Firearms Act 1964 as amended, and two of damaging property contrary to s. 2 of the Criminal Damage Act 1991. In Mr Perry’s case, there were two offences, one of possession of a firearm in suspicious circumstances contrary to s. 27A(1) of the 1964 Act as amended, and one of damaging property contrary to s. 2 of the 1991 Act. The reckless discharge offence carried a maximum sentence of seven years while the possession offences carried maximum sentences of fourteen years, and had a presumptive minimum sentence of five years. Both respondents were sentenced on the 6th July 2016. Mr Loughlin received concurrent sentences for the four offences ranging between two years imprisonment and three and a half years imprisonment. The firearm and possession of ammunition offences received sentences of three and a half years imprisonment and three years imprisonment respectively. In Mr Perry’s case, he was sentenced to two years and six months in respect of the possession of a firearm, and a similar sentence for damaging property. The appellant, the DPP, appealed to the Court of Appeal seeking a review of the sentences imposed on both respondents on the ground that the said sentences were unduly lenient, pursuant to s. 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993. The appeal proceeded on the basis of the following grounds in relation to both respondents: (i) the sentences imposed amount to an error on principle for offences categorised as being in the mid range; (ii) the trial judge erred in principle in finding that there were exceptional circumstances on account of the fact that the accused had pleaded and had cooperated; (iii) the facts of the case did not disclose exceptional circumstances in favour of the accused such as to amount to worthwhile mitigation; and (iv) the sentencing judge erred in principle in his assessment of all the relevant factors in imposing the sentences in respect of the firearms offences.

Held by the Court that the appropriate headline sentences were, in respect of the possession of firearms offences for both respondents a term of seven years imprisonment and in respect of the discharging offence also seven years imprisonment. The Court also noted the strong mitigating factors present in both cases.

The Court held that it would impose the following sentences: 1) In Mr Loughlin’s case, the headline sentences in respect of the firearms discharge offence and the possession offence were reduced to five years; 2) In Mr Perry’s case, the headline sentence in respect of the firearms possession offence was reduced to four years and the portion of this four year sentence which was unserved was suspended for a period of two years on his entering into a bond in the sum of €100 to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The Court held that the criminal damage sentences would remain unchanged for both respondents. The Court held that all sentences were to run concurrently.

Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT (ex tempore) of the Court delivered on the 3rd day of July 2017 by Mr. Justice Mahon
1

Both respondents were charged with a number of offences arising from an incident which occurred in the early hours of the morning of the 19th June 2015 at Clonmoyle, near Monasterevin in Co. Kildare. The previous day, shortly before midnight, a garda surveillance team observed Mr. Loughlin (the first respondent) getting into and driving a blue Volkswagon Passat at Broadford in Co. Kildare. The vehicle travelled towards Edenderry. En route, Mr. Loughlin and Mr. Perry (the second respondent) then got into a BMW 5 Series car and drove from Edenderry towards Rathdangan, and then on towards Monasterevin. At Clonmoyle the gardaí decided to intercept the vehicle. Having activated their blue lights and sirens two of the garda cars overtook the BMW in an effort to force it to stop. The vehicle failed to stop and attempted to ram the garda vehicles. In the course of this altercation Mr. Loughlin produced a firearm and discharged it from the passenger window of the BMW car. The vehicle was finally stopped. Its driver, Mr. Perry, ran away but was pursued on foot and arrested by gardaí. The front seat passenger, Mr. Loughlin, remained seated in the car. The gardaí found a loaded sawn off shotgun loaded with one cartridge, and another cartridge lying on the floor of the car. Admissions were made by both men to the gardaí. Their account as to the purpose of their journey and their intention to use the firearm to put pressure on another individual to pay a drugs debt was not entirely accepted as being true by the gardaí. Mr. Perry maintained that he was unaware that Mr. Loughlin had the firearm on board the vehicle and this was confirmed by Mr. Loughlin.

2

Both respondents were charged with a number of offences to which they pleaded guilty at Naas Circuit Criminal Court on the 16th and 18th December 2015. In Mr. Loughlin's case there were four offences, namely reckless discharge of a firearm contrary to s. 8 of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act 1990, possession of ammunition in suspicious circumstances contrary to s. 27A(1) of the Firearms Act 1964 as amended, and two of damaging property contrary to s. 2 of the Criminal Damage Act 1991. In Mr. Perry's case, there were two offences, one of possession of a firearm in suspicious circumstances contrary to s. 27A(1) of the Firearms Act 1964 as amended, and one of damaging property contrary to s. 2 of the Criminal Damage Act 1991. The reckless discharge offence carries a maximum sentence of seven years while the possession offences carry maximum sentences of fourteen years, and have a presumptive minimum sentence of five years.

3

Both respondents were sentenced on the 6th July 2016. Mr. Loughlin received concurrent sentences for the four offences ranging between two years imprisonment and three and a half years imprisonment. The firearm and possession of ammunition offences received sentences of three and a half years imprisonment and three years imprisonment respectively.

4

In Mr. Perry's case, he was sentenced to two years and six months in respect of the possession of a firearm, and a similar...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • DPP v Hughes & Fox
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 4 Diciembre 2018
    ...progress in custody towards addressing his addiction problems. 11 The appellants referred also to the case DPP v. Loughlin & Perry [2017] IECA 204. Again, this was also an undue leniency case. In that matter, a firearm was discharged giving rise to a charge of ‘reckless discharge’, carrying......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT