The Director of Public Prosecutions v Scott Donegan

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)
• Judge: Mr. Justice Edwards
• Judgment Date: 05 June 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IECA 168
• Docket Number: Record No: 247/2023

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 2 OF THE CRIMINAL justice ACT 1993

Between/

The People (At the Suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions)

Applicant

and

Scott donegan

Respondent

[2025] IECA 168

Edwards J.

McCarthy J.

MacGrath J.

Record No: 247/2023

THE COURT OF APPEAL

Sentencing – Threatening to kill or cause 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 for review of the sentences imposed on the respondent, Mr Donegan, by the Circuit Criminal Court, Ennis on two separate Circuit Court Bills, on grounds that they were unduly lenient. The first offence in time was the offence of threatening to kill or cause serious harm to Mr Martin, which was the subject matter of Bill No CE 38/2021. The second offences in time were the offences of false imprisonment and production of a knife involving “Ms R”, which were the subject matter of Bill No CE26/2023, and which were committed while the respondent was on bail in respect of the previous offence.

Held by the Court that it had not been persuaded that the effective global or cumulative sentence imposed by the sentencing judge at first instance was unduly lenient. The Court did not consider that it was substantially outside the norm. The Court refused the application to review the sentence on grounds of undue leniency. The Court identified a significant error in how the sentencing judge at first instance structured his sentence, which must be rectified by the Court of its own motion. For that purpose only, the Court in exercise of discretion quashed the sentence imposed at first instance and proceeded to re-sentence the respondent.

The Court held that, in respect of the first offence in time, it would again nominate a headline sentence of 25 months imprisonment, and discount from that by 5 months to reflect mitigation and personal circumstances, leaving an initial post mitigation sentence of 20 months. In respect of the second offences in time, the Court again nominated a headline sentence of 125 months imprisonment in respect of the false imprisonment charge, and a headline sentence of 40 months imprisonment in respect of the charge of producing a knife. The Court again discounted by 42 months in the case of the false imprisonment offence, and by 15 months in the case of the charge of producing a knife, leaving initial post mitigation sentences of 83 months and 25 months imprisonment, respectively, for those offences. The Court held that the sentences of 83 months and 25 months imprisonment were to be served concurrently inter se. Turning to the statutory requirement in s. 11(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1984 to have recourse, if possible, to consecutivity in circumstances where the offences on Bill No CE26/2023 were committed while the respondent was on bail for the offence the subject matter of Bill No CE 38/2021, the Court made the sentence of 83 months for the false imprisonment offence consecutive to the sentence of 20 months for the offence of threatening to kill or cause serious harm to Mr Martin. Having had regard to overall proportionality, and considered whether any adjustment was required in the interests of totality, the Court adjusted to reduce the aggregate period to be served by 9 months. The Court suspended for a period of three years the final 9 months of the 83-month sentence imposed for the false imprisonment offence, leaving an effective global or cumulative sentence of 94 months to be served (assuming the conditions on which the partial suspension was being granted were adhered to).

Application refused.

APPROVED JUDGMENT

NO REDACTION NEEDED

JUDGMENT of the Court delivered by Mr. Justice Edwards on the 5 ^th of June, 2025 .

Introduction

1 . This is an application brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions (i.e., “the applicant” or “the Director”) pursuant to s. 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 (“the Act of 1993”) for review of the sentences imposed on Mr. Scott Donegan (i.e., “the respondent”) by the Circuit Criminal Court, Ennis on two separate Circuit Court Bills, on grounds that they were unduly lenient.

2 . On the 25 ^th of September 2023 the sentencing judge at first instance imposed consecutive sentences on the respondent in respect of the two said Bills of Indictment, being Bills No's CE 38/2021 and CE 26/2023, respectively. The total sentence imposed was one of 103 months (or 8 years and 7 months) with the final 9 months thereof conditionally suspended, and to date from the 15 ^th of November 2022.

3 . The first offending in time, which was charged on indictment, was the subject of Bill No CE 38/2021. This contained a single count of threatening to kill or cause serious harm, contrary to s. 5 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. The respondent was sentenced to 20 months (1 year and 8 months) for that offence.

4 . The second offending in time was the subject of Bill No CE 26/2023. This related to two charges, subsequently designated Count No 1 and Count No 2, respectively (to distinguish them inter se), in respect of which the respondent had signed pleas of guilty before the District Court, for offending conduct which was committed while the respondent was on bail for the offence to which Bill No CE 38/2021 relates. Count No 1 on Bill No CE 26/2023 related to an offence of false imprisonment, contrary to s. 15 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997; while Count No 2 on the same Bill related to an offence of production of an article capable of inflicting serious injury in the course of a dispute, contrary to s. 11 of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act 1990. The respondent was sentenced to 83 months (6 years and 11 months) on Count No 1, and to 25 months (2 years and 1 month) on Count No 2. These sentences were to run concurrently inter se, and were to date from the 15 ^th of November 2022.

5 . The sentencing judge further ordered that the sentence for Bill CE 38/2021 should be consecutive to the longer of the two sentences imposed on Bill CE 26/2023, i.e., it was to commence on the lawful expiration of the sentence imposed on Count No 1 on Bill No CE 26/2023.

Factual Background

CE 38/2021

6 . At the sentencing hearing of the 26 ^th of July 2023, a Garda Margaret Leahy gave evidence in relation to the factual background to so much of the respondent's offending as was charged on Bill No CE 38/2021.

7 . She testified that on the 19 ^th of April 2021, at an address in a village on the west coast of Ireland, a Ms. Wickham was getting cameras installed in her house. She had retained a named security contractor to fit those cameras. This security contractor had an employee by the name of William Martin (i.e., “the victim” in respect of this crime).

8 . Mr. Martin arrived on the scene and commenced his work on installing the cameras. He engaged in unloading ladders and getting set up for the job in hand. The respondent was at home on the day in question.

9 . Garda Leahy summarised the context and the nature of the threat to kill or cause serious harm as follows:

“ A. Yes, Judge. On the 19th of April 2021, Mr Martin was installing CCTV cameras at No 31, the house of Georgina Wickham. And she is the neighbour of the accused in this case, Scott Donegan, who resides at No. 30, would have been at the — came out of his house at No. 30 Lios na Si, and then an interaction occurred where Mr Donegan spoke with Mr Martin and started to verbally abuse him. And during that altercation he alleges — it is alleged by Mr Martin that Mr Donegan threatened to stab him to death and called him a scumbag and he was going to kill him, which is the statement that he made to me, Judge. This altercation took place. There was — outside where there were CCTV cameras installed in Mr Donegan's house which captured the actual incident itself. Mr Martin retreated back into Ms Wickham's house after the altercation and phoned his boss, Mr Brian Fitzgerald, and informed him of what was after occurring. He said that he didn't feel comfortable staying in the area to install the cameras due to the threat that was after being made to him by Mr Donegan. So, he was instructed by Mr Fitzgerald, the boss, Brian Fitzgerald, to — best to leave the area and come away from the job as he felt that he was — due to threat that it could escalate and that it was felt that it was best for him to leave the job, which he did immediately. And then he made contact with gardaí the following day and made them aware of the altercation. And a statement was taken — subsequently taken by myself on the 20th of April 2021.

Q. And I think in that statement I think he described having — setting up the job and the accused man coming out and started roaring and shouting at him?

A. Correct, Judge.

Q. I think he indicated that he said hello to Mr Donegan and Mr Donegan started shouting: “Don't you fucking ‘hello’ me, you fucking knacker”?

A. Correct, Judge. And it continued on from there with verbal abuse in relation to Mr Martin himself, Mr Martin's family, and then his friends.

Q. And I think Mr Martin in his statement of intended evidence said that the accused man said to him that he'd stab him to death?

A. Yes, that's his statement of evidence is what he said.”.

10 . Evidence was given that Ms. Wickham was in her kitchen, and she heard a commotion. She heard what was after occurring and from the hall in her house, she took a voice recording of the incident which captured a portion of the altercation.

11 . In addition, CCTV footage, which had audio, was recovered from the house of the respondent following execution of a warrant obtained under s. 10 of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1997. This CCTV footage was played during the...