DPP v Reilly
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr Justice Edwards |
| Judgment Date | 02 March 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] IECA 47 |
| Docket Number | Record No: 110CJA/19 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Ireland) |
| Date | 02 March 2020 |
[2020] IECA 47
Birmingham P.
Edwards J.
Kennedy J.
Record No: 110CJA/19
THE COURT OF APPEAL
Sentencing – Handling stolen property – Severity of sentence – Appellant seeking to appeal against sentence – Whether sentence was unduly severe
Facts: The appellant, Mr Reilly, appealed to the Court of Appeal against the severity of a sentence of eight years imprisonment with the final two years thereof suspended, imposed upon him by Leitrim Circuit Criminal Court on 14 May, 2019, in respect of four counts of handling stolen property contrary to s. 17 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001, to which the appellant had pleaded guilty. The indictment in the case had preferred a total of eleven counts against the appellant. However, the appellant’s offer to plead to just four of those was acceptable to the respondent, the Director of Public Prosecutions, on the understanding that evidence would be led at the sentencing hearing on a full facts basis. The grounds of appeal on which the appellant relied listed seven discrete grounds, namely that: (1) the sentencing judge erred in principle by stating that the appellant was involved in a sophisticated handling operation involving the importation of stolen vehicles from England when there was no evidence presented to that effect; (2) the sentencing judge erred in principle by taking into account the manner in which the vehicles were illegally obtained and the subsequent illegal alterations made to the said vehicles when no related charges to these acts were before the court, nor was there any evidence before the court of the appellant’s involvement in these acts; (3) the sentencing judge erred in principle by drawing attention to an inference that this offence was connected to a larger operation relating to approximately seventy vehicles when these matters were not before the court; (4) the sentencing judge erred in principle by stating that these offences resulted in a considerable profit for the appellant; (5) the sentencing judge failed to take into account relevant matters, namely that a period of almost 9 years had elapsed between the last in time of the offences before the court and the date of sentence, and that in this time the appellant had received no convictions; (6) the sentence of imprisonment passed on the appellant was wrong in principle in that the appellant had relatively minor previous convictions of a similar nature and these were of some antiquity and an alternative method of sentencing was available and appropriate having regard to all the circumstances of the case; and (7) the sentence of imprisonment passed on the appellant was manifestly excessive and/or unduly severe and/or disproportionate having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
Held by the Court that it was satisfied to uphold the sentence imposed by the court below. Although the sentence was possibly at the severe end of the range of sentences that might legitimately have been imposed by the sentencing judge, the Court held that it was comfortably within his margin of appreciation. The Court found no error of principle.
The Court held that the appeal would be dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
In this case the appellant appeals against the severity of a sentence of eight years imprisonment with the final two years thereof suspended, imposed upon him by Leitrim Circuit Criminal Court on 14 May, 2019, in respect of four counts of handling stolen property contrary to section 17 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001, to which the appellant had pleaded guilty. The indictment in the case had preferred a total of eleven counts against the appellant. However, the appellant's offer to plead to just four of those was acceptable to the respondent on the understanding that evidence would be led at the sentencing hearing on a full facts basis.
The charges to which the appellant pleaded guilty arise out of a professional and commercial transnational criminal conspiracy to clone motor vans stolen in the United Kingdom and sell them on in Ireland. The basic modus operandi involved motor vans being stolen and then being modified so as to change their chassis numbers and other identification numbers to match those of similar vehicles which had not been stolen, and copies of whose registration documents had been obtained by deception. This enabled the vehicles to be sold on with ostensibly valid documentation to unsuspecting purchasers in Ireland. The value of eight of the eleven motor vans in question ranged between Stg£9500 and Stg£18,864. There was no value available for three of the eleven motor vans.
As a result of an intelligence led Garda operation the appellant was identified as being a significant participant in the aforementioned conspiracy. He represented the Irish end of the operation. He recruited persons, and in particular Mr and Mrs McLoughlin, to travel to the United Kingdom to collect the cloned motor vans and to transport them by car ferry from Holyhead to Ireland. The appellant would then arrange for the sale of the cloned motor vans in Ireland, frequently using the online website ‘Done-Deal’. On the 13th of December, 2011, the appellant was intercepted entering the country on the Ulysses car ferry from Holyhead to Dublin while driving a camper van. He was arrested at 1.05am on that date, under section 71 of the Criminal Justice Act, 2006, for conspiracy to commit a serious offence. He was taken to Store Street Garda station where he was detained and questioned. He was uncooperative and responded to all questions asked of him with “no comment”. Subsequently a file was sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions who directed that he be prosecuted for the offences the subject matter of the present indictment.
The effect of these crimes was to cause distress and to inconvenience the original owners of the motor vans in question, and to cause financial loss to their insurers. In addition, following the detection of these crimes, and the repossession of the motor vans in question from those to whom they had been sold, the unwitting purchasers also suffered financial loss as well as being put to trouble and inconvenience. The court was told that the total losses suffered by the insurers of the original owners of the motor vans was Stg£103,809, and that the losses suffered by customers in Ireland amounted to €50,150.
The sentencing court was told that the appellant is a married man who has a number of children and grandchildren. His wife does not enjoy good health and he is her carer. He has previously worked as a van salesman in the United Kingdom. He was understood to be residing part of the time in Carrick on Shannon and part of the time in the United Kingdom. The appellant was said to have received limited education and much of his life has been spent working at menial jobs in the black economy – as it was euphemistically put, “he's never really been on the books”. There was reference to him having been a handyman on a halting site at one point.
The sentencing court heard evidence that the appellant has fourteen previous convictions. These include convictions for disorderly conduct in a public place, intoxication in a public place, using threatening and abusive and insulting behaviour contrary to the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, 1994; criminal damage, section 2 assault, production of an article in the course of a dispute, affray, theft, failing to surrender to custody, conspiracy to defraud, and attempting to obtain property by deception. While the sentences for most of these offences were noncustodial he did receive a prison sentence of fifteen months for the offence of conspiracy to defraud which was recorded by Isleworth Crown Court. It is understood that this was sometime in the mid-1990s.
It is accepted by the prosecution that the appellant's plea was a valuable one. Although it was not a particularly early plea it was not one that was left until the last minute. The nature of this case was such that it would have involved numerous witnesses travelling from England if it had gone ahead. His pleas enabled these witnesses to be called off, albeit at short notice and in circumstances where in some cases travel arrangements had been made.
The sentencing judge was informed that Mr and Mrs McLoughlin had already been dealt with by the courts and had received suspended sentences for their part in this criminal conspiracy. In particular the court was told that both McLoughlins received sentences of four years imprisonment suspended for...
To continue reading
Request your trial