The Director of Public Prosecutions v Connors

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)
• Judge: Ms. Justice Tara Burns
• Judgment Date: 01 December 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IECA 294
• Docket Number: Record Numbers: 276CJA/2024, 277CJA/2024

In the Matter of Section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993

Between/

The People at the Suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions

Applicant

and

JIM Connors

Respondent

[2025] IECA 294

Kennedy J

Burns J

Collins J

Record Numbers: 276CJA/2024, 277CJA/2024

THE COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL

Sentencing – Dangerous driving causing serious harm – Undue leniency – Applicant seeking review of sentences – Whether sentences were unduly lenient

Facts: The applicant, the Director of Public Prosecutions, applied to the Court of Appeal pursuant to s. 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 seeking a review of the sentences imposed on the respondent, Mr Connors, on two separate bills of indictment on grounds of undue leniency. On Bill 626/23, the respondent pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing serious harm contrary to s. 53(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (Count 1); failing to offer assistance to a victim, contrary to s. 106(1)(aa) of the 1961 Act (Counts 2, 3, and 4); and driving without a driving licence contrary to s. 38(1) of the 1961 Act (Count 9). On Bill 73/23, he pleaded guilty to reckless endangerment contrary to s. 13 of Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. He subsequently entered pleas of guilty to dangerous driving, drug driving, driving without insurance and driving without a licence. On Count 1 of Bill 626/23, he was sentenced to 4 and a half years’ imprisonment. On Counts 2, 3 and 4, he was sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment. The terms of imprisonment imposed were fully suspended on certain terms and conditions. All other counts were taken into consideration. On Bill 73/23, he received a 3 year term of imprisonment which was suspended in its entirety for a period of 5 years on the same terms and conditions. All other counts were taken into consideration. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. He received a 10 year disqualification from driving. The ground upon which the applicant sought to review the sentences was that the sentencing judge erred in imposing a fully suspended sentence in respect of each bill number as it was not proportionate to the serious nature of the offending carried out and failed to adequately provide for general or specific deterrence.

Held by the Court that the rehabilitation evidence was not of such an exceptional level as to merit the suspension of the entire term of imprisonment; in taking that course of action, the sentencing judge failed to impose a proportionate sentence with respect of the serious offending committed. The Court held that a sentence was imposed which was a substantial departure from the appropriate sentence and was unduly lenient within the meaning of the 1993 Act. The Court quashed the sentence imposed on both bill numbers and proceeded to re-sentence the respondent.

The Court, on Bill 626/23, imposed a term of imprisonment of 4 years and 6 months on Count 1. With respect to Counts 2, 3 and 4, the Court imposed a term of imprisonment of 4 years; all remaining counts were taken into consideration. The Court disqualified the respondent from driving for a period of 15 years to date from 14 October 2024. With respect to Bill 73/23, the Court imposed a term of imprisonment of 3 years’ imprisonment on Count 1, with all other counts taken into consideration. The Court disqualified the respondent from driving for a period of 15 years to date from 14 October 2024. The Court held that the sentence in Bill 73/23 was to run concurrently to the sentences imposed on Bill 626/23. The Court held that the sentences were to date from the execution of a bench warrant which was issued in respect of the respondent.

Application granted.

No Redaction Needed

JUDGMENT of the Court delivered on the 1 ^st day of December, 2025 by Ms. Justice Tara Burns.

1 This is an application pursuant to s. 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 (‘the 1993 Act’) seeking a review of the sentences imposed on the respondent on two separate bills of indictment on grounds of undue leniency.

2 On Bill No. 626/2023, the respondent pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing serious harm contrary to s.53(1) of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, as amended (‘the 1961 Act’) (Count 1); failing to offer assistance to a victim, contrary to s. 106(1)(aa) of the 1961 Act (Counts 2, 3, and 4); and driving without a driving licence contrary to s. 38(1) of the 1961 Act (Count 9). These offences occurred on 22 February 2022.

3 On Bill No. 73/2023, the respondent pleaded guilty to reckless endangerment contrary to s.13 of Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. He subsequently entered pleas of guilty to dangerous driving, drug driving, driving without insurance and driving without a licence. These offences were committed on 19 March 2022.

4 On Count 1 of Bill No. 626/2023, the respondent was sentenced to 4 and a half years' imprisonment. On Counts 2, 3 and 4, the respondent was sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment. The terms of imprisonment imposed were fully suspended on certain terms and conditions. All other counts were taken into consideration.

5 On Bill No. 73/2023, the respondent received a 3 year term of imprisonment which was suspended in its entirety for a period of 5 years on the same terms and conditions. All other counts were taken into consideration.

6 The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The respondent also received a 10 year disqualification from driving.

Background

Bill 626/2023

7 On the night of 19 February 2022, the appellant drove his motor vehicle through a red traffic light at a significant junction over the N11 and collided with a taxi, containing three persons. The taxi was pushed towards a bridge which was an overpass on the N11 motorway. The appellant exited his car, looked into the taxi, and then ran from the scene. He was identified from CCTV footage and was subsequently arrested and detained. When interviewed he indicated that he knew nothing about the incident.

8 The respondent was disqualified from driving at the time of the offending.

9 One of the victims in the taxi sustained severe injuries as a result of this incident, including cracked neck discs, back discs, and ribs. He sustained a broken tibia of his left leg and a fractured right ankle. He also suffered psychological trauma.

Bill No. 73/2023

10 In the early hours of the morning of 19 March 2022, Gardaí observed the respondent at a petrol station and became suspicious of his movements. They noticed that there were no visible discs on the respondent's vehicle. Gardaí drove their vehicle towards the respondent's vehicle, at which point the respondent drove away at speed, almost colliding with the Garda vehicle. Gardaí activated their lights and sirens and pursued the respondent in a high speed chase. The vehicle came to a sudden complete stop in front of the Garda vehicle and then accelerated back towards the Garda vehicle. The Garda driver took evasive measures to avoid being hit by the respondent's vehicle. Ultimately the vehicle went down a cul-de-sac where Gardaí were able to block its escape. The respondent had moved to the passenger seat and denied that he had been driving the vehicle. He refused to exit the vehicle and resisted arrest.

11 Gardaí noticed a smell of alcohol from the respondent. He was arrested, detained, and had a blood sample taken. The blood sample showed a reading for alcohol which was under the legal limit. The sample was also analysed for drugs which disclosed the presence of cocaine over the legal limit.

Personal Circumstances of the Respondent

12 The respondent was 27 years of age at the time of the offending in this matter. He is married with six young children. The respondent has a history of severe alcohol and drug abuse. He has 36 previous convictions, including 10 road traffic offences, including dangerous driving. He also was disqualified from driving for a 6 year period at the time of the offending. The respondent had lost several members of his family in a traumatic event in 2015.

Sentencing Judge's Determination

13 On 8 May 2023, the sentencing judge heard evidence in relation to Bill No. 73/2023. She adjourned sentencing to permit the respondent engage in rehabilitation, commenting that the appellant needed to be at home with his wife and children.

14 On 6 October 2023, the sentencing judge heard evidence in relation to Bill No. 626/2023. She again adjourned sentencing to facilitate the respondent's rehabilitation.

15 On 14 October 2024, the sentencing judge proceeded to impose sentence.

16 On Bill 626/23, she identified the aggravating factors as:

• a) The manner of dangerous driving in which the respondent engaged, which had the potential to lead to a fatal accident;

• b) Driving through a red light prior to the collision;

• c) Leaving the scene of the accident having witnessed the injuries caused to the occupants of the other vehicle;

• d) Failing to call emergency services;

• e) The serious and life-changing injuries sustained by the injured parties;

• f) Non-cooperation with Gardaí during interviews;

• g) The...