Irish Court of Appeal

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Irish Court of Appeal >> Director of Public Prosecutions v O'Sullivan [2019] IECA 310 (02 December 2019)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECA/2019/2019IECA310.html
Cite as: [2019] IECA 310

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

Page 1 ⇓

The President

McCarthy J.

Kennedy J.

THE COURT OF APPEAL

107/2019

BETWEEN/

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

RESPONDENT

- AND -

DEIRDRE O’ SULLIVAN

APPELLANT

JUDGMENT of the Court (ex tempore) delivered on the 2nd day of December 2019 by

Ms. Justice Kennedy

1. This is an appeal against sentence. The appellant pleaded guilty in Cork Circuit Court to a

count of burglary contrary to s.12(1)(a) and (3) of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud

Offences) Act, 2001. On the 10th May, 2019 the appellant was sentenced to four years’

imprisonment with the final year of that sentence suspended on terms.

Background

2. The background to the offence is as follows: On the 22nd December, 2017 a member of

staff at a restaurant on Princes Street in Cork reported that her handbag containing her

phone, identity cards, bank cards, cash and jewellery had been taken from the staff room.

CCTV footage of the premises was examined and Gardaí identified the appellant leaving

the premises with the items in question. A warrant was obtained and the appellant’s

address was searched with no success. On the 22nd January, 2018 the appellant was

arrested on suspicion of burglary and questioned. She initially denied any involvement

with the burglary but on 8th February, 2019 the appellant was arraigned and pleaded

guilty. The stolen property was not recovered.

The sentence

3. In sentencing the appellant, the sentencing judge said as follows:-

“This lady has a long lamentable history of drug addiction. I accept what the guard

says that her lifestyle is totally chaotic, her addiction is complete, and there has

been no effort to break that addiction until she went into custody. Her history of

convictions for burglaries is long, and she served four years since 2015 for

burglary. She has not made any real progress herself while in the community and

her burglary on this occasion had a devastating effect on Ms Vida, who was left

without her identity card, her driving licence and in particular, for a lady who was,

as she says herself, a foreign woman in this country, that caused her a lot of

personal anguish and trouble. With this lady’s -the accused’s history of burglary,

it’s hard to know where to go because previously she had a partially suspended

sentence, didn’t seem to work the oracle or have any real beneficial effect, so I am

asking myself, you know, what is the point in structuring a sentence for this lady

because she is not going to change. And it’s really pointless to do the same thing

Page 2 ⇓

repeatedly. Now, were I going to structure a sentence, I’d set a headline sentence

of four years and suspend one, but as I say, looking at the background, it’s

probably pointless.”

The sentencing judge then concluded by imposing a sentence of four years’ imprisonment

with the final year suspended.

Personal Circumstances

4. The appellant was thirty-three years old at the time of sentencing, the court heard that

she is a chronic drug user with a serious heroin addiction which has contributed to her

high volume of previous convictions. She has 178 previous convictions the majority of

which were dealt with in the District Court. These include; 78 theft offences; 8 relating to

burglary and one for trespass with intent to commit an offence. One of the convictions

for burglary was a conviction before Cork Circuit Court in 2015 for the offence of burglary

and a sentence of four years’ imprisonment with the final two years suspended was

imposed in that regard.

5. The Circuit Court also heard that the appellant paid over a sum of €500 by way of

compensation towards the injured party and in the plea of mitigation, counsel for the

appellant informed the court that the appellant had made efforts towards rehabilitation

whilst in custody.

Submissions of the appellant

6. The appellant submits that the sentencing judge erred in failing to follow the

recommended two-stage process of sentencing and as such, the sentencing process

lacked transparency and the sentence imposed was not proportionate to the offence itself

and the personal circumstances of eth appellant.

7. The appellant submits that the trial judge erred in failing to have adequate regard to the

mitigating circumstances of the appellant. In particular, the appellant submits that the

sentencing judge ought to have attached more weight to the appellant’s expression of

remorse and the 500 euro offered to the injured party. The appellant further submits that

it was not made clear what discount was afforded to the mitigating circumstances.

8. The appellant submits that the trial judge erred in failing to take into account the

rehabilitation of the appellant during her time in custody.

Submissions of the respondent

9. The respondent accepts that the sentencing judge did not following the recommended

approach to sentencing but it is submitted that it does not necessarily follow that such

amounts to an error in principle and the overall sentence imposed was appropriate in the

circumstances.

10. The respondent submits that the sentencing remarks of the judge, laid out above,

demonstrate that the sentencing judge clearly considered all relevant circumstances

including the gravity of the offending which had a considerable impact on the injured

party, the numerous convictions of appellant and the appellant’s lack of progress in the

Page 3 ⇓

community. In relation to the rehabilitation of the appellant, the respondent submits that

while submissions were made to the Court that the appellant was engaging in counselling

and on methadone while in custody, there was no other evidence before the Court

detailing the rehabilitation progress or details as to a future plan.

11. The respondent concludes that the sentence imposed took account of all relevant matters

and was within the sentencing discretion of the trial judge.

Conclusion

12. We do not accept that the complaint that the sentencing judge failed to follow the well-

known two stage process in sentencing is an error in principle. As has been stated by

Edwards J. in The People (DPP) v Molloy [2018] IECA 37, sentencing is about substance

over form. The failure to adhere to a particular form will not therefore in and of itself lead

to an error of principle.

13. In our view, the suggestion that the sentence lacks transparency is not borne out by an

examination of the judge’s remarks. Initially, he deemed a pre mitigation sentence of

four years with a reduction by one year in view of the mitigation to be the appropriate

sentence. On being requested by counsel to consider suspending part of the sentence,

the judge restructured the sentence so as to suspend the final year on terms, clearly in

light of the mitigation and in order to incentivise rehabilitation.

14. Finally, the argument is advanced that the judge failed to give adequate reduction for

mitigation. The appellant had entered a plea of guilty, she is a woman with a history of

addiction and had offered €500 to the victim of her crime. The judge affords a reduction

of 25% for these factors, and, in order to incentivise rehabilitation by suspending the final

year of the sentence on terms. These terms assist the appellant in her efforts to

rehabilitate herself on her release.

15. In the circumstances we do not find any error in principle and accordingly we dismiss the

appeal.

Result: Dismiss