The Director of Public Prosecutions v Sweeney

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)
• Judge: Ms. Justice Isobel Kennedy
• Judgment Date: 10 April 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IECA 114
• Docket Number: Record Numbers: 235/2023

Between/

The People at the Suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent/

and

Patrick Sweeney

Appellants

[2025] IECA 114

Kennedy J.

Burns J.

MacGrath J.

Record Numbers: 235/2023

THE COURT OF APPEAL

Sentencing – False imprisonment – Manifestly excessive sentence – Appellant appealing against sentence – Whether the sentencing judge erred in law in imposing a sentence which was excessive and unduly harsh in all the circumstances

Facts: The appellant was convicted on 2 June 2023 following a 19 week trial with co-accused. On 28 July 2023, he was sentenced to: 5 years imprisonment in respect of 4 counts of assault causing harm; 15 years imprisonment in respect of 1 count of false imprisonment; 14 years imprisonment in respect of 3 counts of false imprisonment; 13 years imprisonment in respect of 1 count of aggravated burglary; 10 years imprisonment in respect of 3 counts of arson; 10 years imprisonment in respect of 1 count of violent disorder; 8 years imprisonment in respect of 1 count of criminal damage; and 5 years imprisonment in respect of 1 count of animal cruelty. All sentences were imposed concurrently. He appealed to the Court of Appeal against severity of sentence on the grounds that the sentencing judge: (1) erred in law in imposing a sentence which was excessive and unduly harsh in all the circumstances; (2) erred in law in failing to structure a sentence balancing punitive, deterrent, and rehabilitative elements, and in failing to structure a sentence proportionate to the circumstances of the offender; (3) erred in law in failing to have adequate account of the mitigating factors arising in the matter; (4) failed to take into account that the appellant had no previous convictions at the time of the offence and had committed no offences since being charged with the offences of which he was convicted; (5) failed to have any or any adequate regard to the fact that the appellant had no previous convictions of a similar nature to the offence charged; (6) failed to attach sufficient weight to the appellant's personal circumstances and to the effect which a custodial sentence would have on him and his family; (7) erred in principle in failing to consider the punitive nature that a suspended portion of a sentence can have and in lieu imposed a sentence which was wholly custodial; (8) erred as regards where the offence was placed on the scale of offending behaviour and what the appropriate sentence was taking into account the mitigating factors and applying the required mitigation discount; and (9) failed to have regard to the individual culpability of the appellant.

Held by the Court that it was not satisfied that any issue arose with the nomination of headline sentences. The Court did not find any error in principle in the judge’s approach to how she structured the sentences imposed. The Court was satisfied that the sentences imposed fell within the margin of appreciation afforded to a trial judge. The Court held that the fact that direct responsibility may not be laid at the appellant’s door for compelling Mr Gordon to eat dog faeces did not render the notional sentence nominated by the judge unjust or absolve him from moral culpability in terms of a joint enterprise to terrorise and attack the individual in charge of the security operation. In the Court’s view the nomination of that sentence given the factors referenced by the sentencing judge was entirely justified.

The Court did not find any error of principles and dismissed the appeal against sentence.

Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT of the Court delivered on the 10 ^th day of April 2025 by Ms. Justice Isobel Kennedy.

1 . The appellant was convicted on the 2 ^nd June 2023, following a 19 week trial with co-accused. This judgment concerns the appeal against severity of sentence, the appeal against conviction having been dismissed by this Court in People (DPP) v Sweeney, Beirne and O'Toole [2024] IECA 205.

2 . On the 28 ^th July 2023, the appellant was sentenced to: 5 years imprisonment in respect of 4 counts of assault causing harm contrary to s.3 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997; 15 years imprisonment in respect of 1 count of false imprisonment contrary to s.15 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997; 14 years imprisonment in respect of 3 counts of false imprisonment contrary to the same provision; 13 years imprisonment in respect of 1 count of aggravated burglary, contrary to s.13 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001; 10 years imprisonment in respect of 3 counts of arson, contrary to s.2(11), (4) and (5) of the Criminal Damage Act 1991; 10 years imprisonment in respect of 1 count of violent disorder contrary to s.15 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, 1994; 8 years imprisonment in respect of 1 count of criminal damage contrary to s.2(1) and (5) of the Criminal Damage Act, 1991 and 5 years imprisonment in respect of 1 count of animal cruelty, contrary to s.12(1) and (2). All sentences were imposed concurrently.

Factual Background

3 . The detailed factual background to this appeal is set out by Charleton J. in the judgment of this Court in respect of the conviction appeal, however, the facts are briefly set out herein.

4 . The offending occurred at a property in Falsk, County Roscommon, which contained a family home and attached farmland. The property was the subject of a mortgage held by KBC bank, and repossession orders in respect of the property were issued by the High Court in 2012 and 2018, the latter being acted upon by Trinity Asset Management on behalf of KBC Bank. Trinity Asset Management engaged GS Agency Security Company to act as bailiffs in repossessing the property, which they did on the 11 ^th December 2018, removing the occupants on foot of the High Court order. Following the repossession, Mr. Ian Gordan, CEO and Director of GS Agency Security Company, and up to 8 employees remained to secure the property. The security men on the property were aware that they were under some kind of observation, having noticed photographs of the property being taken.

5 . The people employed by Mr. Gordon, if not actively working on a shift, either slept or rested in the house or in one of the vehicles on the property.

6 . In the early hours of the morning of the 16 ^th December 2018, a Mr. Beirne drove a cattle truck to a local pub and picked up a large group of men. The truck arrived at the property at about 05:00 and a telehandler vehicle was first used to forcefully open the locked gates to the premises. This vehicle then proceeded onto the driveway and drove one of the vehicles; a Mercedes Sprinter backwards leaving skid marks on the driveway. Mr. Gordon was of the view that some 30–40 men then spilled out of the cattle truck wearing hi-vis vests and carrying assorted weapons. Some were wearing hoods, some had their faces covered, and all appeared to be carrying weapons.

7 . What can only be described as a brutal and savage attack then ensued as the men entered the property with various weapons, including a meat cleaver, a pickaxe handle, an unidentified aerosol spray, blades, sticks, baseball bats, hurleys, sledgehammers, and chainsaws.

8 . Mr. Gordon went forward with his dog and then one of the men struck the animal forcefully over the head with a baseball bat. He was subsequently euthanised by a vet. Mr. Gordon was then savagely attacked, with a witness stating that he was felled with such force that the witness believed he had died as he landed on the ground. While on the ground, several people jumped on his back and on his legs. As he tried to get up, someone put a foot to his back and a shotgun was put to his head, he was ordered to crawl but he was unable to do so, due to the severity of the assault. He was forced to eat his dog's faeces. There was an attempt to remove his trousers. Mr. Gordon sustained wounds to his scalp, an injury to his wrist and finger and multiple areas of bruising. He sustained a fractured wrist and some broken ribs. The severity of the bruising is evident from photographs before this court.

9 . This Court viewed footage captured on a bodycam worn by one of the victims which shows Mr. Sweeney entering the kitchen of the property wielding and revving a chainsaw, carrying a pickaxe handle and wearing a hunter style hat. Several other intruders entered with him. The security men described hearing continuous chainsaw and/or angle grinder revving.

10 . Mr. Rissen, one of the victims who was in the living room was manhandled and gripped by the back of his coat and bundled out the door to be met by a scene of total chaos, with windows broken on his car, vehicles on fire, shouting and noise. His boots were removed. He saw Mr. Gordon being kicked and punched. He himself was pushed to the ground and received blows to his face, hands and legs. He later discovered his leg had been cut which required stitches. When the attackers left, he noticed that one of his colleagues had his trousers down. The judge observed in her summary of the evidence when imposing sentence, that Mr. Rissen was asked by the attackers as to Mr. Gordon's whereabouts and noted that he, Mr. Gordon, was singled out for particular attention and treatment.

11 . Mr. Graham was also in the house, he was overpowered by four or five men and was struck on the head, shoulders and arms. He also noticed one man had a chainsaw, clearly, this appellant. A man with a meat cleaver hit him in the chest, but fortunately he was wearing a stab proof vest. The impact caused him to fall and as he sought to rise, he was stabbed twice in the leg. He was also struck with a sharp weapon to the head and beaten with sticks, bats, and hurls. He was doused in petrol from his lower thighs to his ankle. He was cable tied. The assault continued and he lost consciousness.

12 . Mr. McCartney who had worked with Mr. Gordon previously at...