Irish Court of Criminal Appeal

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Irish Court of Criminal Appeal >> D.P.P. (People) v. Driscoll & Anor [2008] IECCA 97 (4 July 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECCA/2008/2008_IECCA_97.html
Cite as: [2008] IECCA 97

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

Neutral Citation: [2008] IECCA 97

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

Fennelly J.

Budd J.

Birmingham J.

51/07

55/07

The People at the Suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions

V

Billy O'Driscoll and Nicholas O'Driscoll

Applicant

Judgment of the Court (ex tempore) delivered on the 4th day of July 2008 by Fennelly J.

These two applications for leave to appeal come before the court by way of appeal against sentence imposed by Judge O'Donobhain in the Circuit Criminal Court in Cork. They were imposed in respect of a series of offences all committed on one day the 27th August, 2006 all effectively a continuum or a series of linked offences. The sentences were imposed on the two accused on 8th March, 2007. Both of the applicants pleaded guilty to burglary and intimidation; that is two of the counts; and on one Nicholas O'Driscoll pleaded guilty to two separate counts of producing an offensive weapon and another of assault on one of the victims.

Very briefly the position is that in relation to the entire matter it begins with a burglary at about 6 am at the home of Michael Griffin and Sinead Lenehan and their children at 111 Churchfield Avenue Cork. Both of the applicants live fairly nearby but at that time in the morning they broke into the house, ransacked it, stole mobile phones, a play station, €500 in cash and a handbag belonging to Ms. Lenehan. Later in the day Ms. Lenehan saw them going by, they knew them; these were people they knew, that broke into their house. She went out to protest and she was met with a threat of being hit by a shovel by Nicholas O'Driscoll. Later in the day the two of them attended at the house, knocked at the door, this at a time when they had complained quite properly to the Garda Siochana. Nicholas O'Driscoll but in the

-2-

presence of Billy O'Driscoll produced a hammer and threatened and intimidated the two victims not to get involved with the law.

They really are very threatening and dangerous offences and the sentences imposed are that firstly it is not a sentence strictly speaking imposed but it is the effect of sentences being imposed on this occasion that both of the accused had suspended sentences already outstanding which were reactivated and backdated to the 27^thAugust 2006. It will not be necessary to refer to that any further because it is not before the court. Both of them received four-year sentences consecutive to the reactivated sentence for the burglary. Both received six years concurrent sentences for the intimidation consecutive to the burglary offence also and Nicholas O'Driscoll received four years sentences concurrent with those sentences and a six month sentence for a separate assault on Sinead Lenehan.

In these circumstances the court finds it difficult to see how there could be any merit in the appeal. The number of offences on the record of each of them is remarkable. In the case of Nicholas O'Driscoll he has 38 previous convictions including convictions for burglary, criminal damage, possession of stolen property and most recently and relevantly a four year sentence for robbery imposed on 20^th May last year which, at the time of the sentencing hearing in these cases, was on appeal to this court but which since has been disposed of. That is something which has to be added to the record that it is before the Circuit Court.

In the case of Billy O'Driscoll he has at the age of 22, 76 previous convictions. Insofar as there is any explanation for this spate of crime it was suggested without any serious evidence that each of them had a drink problem. In one case it was put to the Garda who did not agree. He said anytime he met him he was sober. What real point is put forward? In the case of Nicholas O'Driscoll evidence was produced from his brother that he was out of control, according to the brother, that something should be done and he provided generously €4,000 in compensation which was apparent paid to the injured parties. The other applicant Billy O'Driscoll produced €900 compensation and that has to be taken into account.

-3-

Then there is a suggestion that the learned judge erred in not building some provision for rehabilitation into the sentence but as he quite correctly said there was no evidence before him about any programme of rehabilitation. There was no evidence upon which he could come to the conclusion that these people who had up to now had led a career of crime as already stated in one case 38 convictions and another 76 previous convictions that they had any programme of rehabilitation even any intention to rehabilitate themselves and the court found it impossible to interfere with the sentences and to find that there was any error and accordingly dismisses the applications.