Director of Public Prosecutions v Donoghue [2019] IECA 304 (05 December 2019)

BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

JUDGMENT of the Court (ex tempore) delivered on the 5th day of December, 2019 by

1. The appellant pleaded guilty at the first opportunity at Cork Circuit Cork to two offences:

(a) On the 14th of October, 2017 at Cahill’s Shop, Meelin, Newmarket, in the County of

Cork he robbed the shopkeeper of Amber Leaf tobacco and Benson and Hedges

(b) On the 18th of October, 2017 at O’Riordan’s Filling Station, Bluepool, Kanturk in the

County of Cork he stole property to wit petrol to the value of €20.

2. On the 22nd day of November, 2018, he was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment in

respect of count one, with the final twelve months suspended and a further sentence of

two and a half years’ imprisonment on count two, with the final eighteen months

suspended. The second sentence was consecutive to the first sentence, thus giving a total

sentence of four and a half years’ imprisonment, the last 18 months of which were

suspended on his entering into a bond to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a

period of three years and further that the appellant shall engage and remain under the

supervision of the Probation Services and comply with all directions of any assigned

Probation Officer, including attendance at any courses and/or counselling and further,

that the appellant shall advise said Probation Services of any change in circumstances

such as contact, telephone details or address. That the appellant shall remain free from

all alcohol, controlled drugs and make himself available, whenever required to do so to

provide appropriate toxicology tests and further, that he remain away from the village of

3. We note that there was some confusion as to the effect of the suspended element of the

first sentence when the second sentence was made consecutive. We would simply

comment that the suspension of an initial sentence to which another is being made

consecutive may cause difficulties in the calculation of the commencement of the second

4. Two grounds of appeal were relied upon by the appellant and I set those out as follows:

(a) The learned Trial Judge erred in law and fact in setting a headline sentence of two

and a half years for the offence of theft of €20 of petrol in the absence of any

aggravating factors and further erred in only mitigating the headline sentence of

two and a half years to one of two and a half years with the final eighteen months

suspended consecutive to the sentence imposed on count number one.

(b) The learned Trial Judge erred in law in fact in making the sentence at count two

consecutive to the sentence imposed in count one and erred in law and fact on the

5. In essence therefore the appeal was in respect of the imposition of the two and a half

year sentence for the theft of the petrol and the fact that it was made consecutive to the

6. The evidence was given with regard to each of the two counts on the Indictment to which

the appellant had pleaded guilty. First related to the offence of robbery on the 14th day

of October, 2017 at Cahill’s shop in Newmarket. As there was no appeal in respect of this

matter it is unnecessary to say anything further about this offence.

7. The second offence was committed four days after the earlier offence, when the appellant

entered a filling station, filled a motor vehicle with €20 worth of petrol and left without

8. In respect of both offences, neither Injured Party wished to make formal victim impact

9. Evidence was given with regard to the appellant’s previous convictions. The appellant

had nineteen previous convictions in total since 2016 including one for burglary, six for

theft and one for possession of an article contrary to Section 15 of the Criminal Justice

(Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001, all of which were dealt with summarily and none of

which concerned crimes of violence. The appellant did not commit these offences during

the operation of a suspended sentence and he was not on bail at the time of the

commission of these offences. It is also the case that any sentence of imprisonment that

10. The appellant had admitted full culpability and responsibility in respect of both offences.

It was further accepted that when the appellant was charged in respect of the two

offences, the subject matter of this appeal, he made known his intention to enter a plea

of guilty immediately. The appellant was 22 years old at the time.

11. The sentencing judge took the view that the sentence to be imposed ought contain a

deterrent to stop the appellant from re-offending. This was both specific and general i.e.

“put out the message that other people should not carry or follow your example of

12. In dealing with the theft of €20 of petrol the trial judge referred to the offence as “one of

those horrible thefts”. He had previously described both offences as very serious

13. The sentencing judge in specifically dealing with the imposition of sentence concerning

count number two, the s.4 theft of €20 worth of petrol, in so assessing sentence as

“The same circumstances apply – and factors apply, as set out when referring to

count one. The court assesses a headline sentence of two and a half years in

relation to this offence and will suspend the last eighteen months of that sentence,

but I am making the last eighteen months – I will suspend on the accused entering

into a bond in the same terms and conditions, thereby leaving a net sentence to be

served of one year, and the sentence will be consecutive to the sentence imposed

14. The sentencing judge considered the question of the totality of the sentence but stated

there was no necessity for a further deduction bearing in mind all the circumstances

15. The appellant relied upon the well know principle in DPP v. McCormack [2000] 4 I.R. 356

that the appropriate sentence depends not only upon the facts of the particular case but

also on the personal circumstances of the accused. He submitted that the “drive off”

offence was clearly an offence of a minor nature and the headline sentence was set too

high. The DPP accepted that the trial judge had made a jump from the manner in which

his previous sentences for dishonesty had been dealt with non-custodially and this

custodial sentence. In written submissions the DPP identified the effect on the victim as

an appropriate matter that the trial judge was entitled to take into account.

16. As regards consecutive sentencing, the appellant relied upon the dicta in DPP v. McC

“It has long been the sentencing practice in this jurisdiction that a discretion in

“There has always been a totality principle in relation to sentencing so as to ensure

that the overall sentence after taking consecutive elements into account etc. is a

17. As regards the totality principle the appellant relied upon the dicta of Birmingham P. in

“The totality principle is potentially engaged whenever a court is seeking to reflect

the overall gravity of two or more offences for which an accused faces sentencing,

either by means of overlapping sentences, or wholly consecutive sentences. It

permits a court to adjust the final sentence, and some or all of its individual

components, as required to reach an overall figure as appropriate both to the

gravity of the offending, but also to the circumstances of the individual offender”.

18. The appellant submitted the sentencing judge erred in imposing a consecutive sentence

on count two consecutive to count one. No mandatory circumstances prevailed whereby

the sentence concerning count two was mandatorily consecutive. In imposing a

consecutive sentence, it was submitted the sentencing judge erred in the overriding duty

to impose a sentence that fairly reflects the overall gravity of the appellant’s criminal

conduct. The sentencing judge did not explain why he imposed one and it was submitted

19. The DPP relied upon O’Malley, Sentencing Law and Practice (Round Hall, 3rd edn.):

“In so far as there is any guiding common-law principle, it is that concurrent

offences should ordinarily be imposed for offences arising from the same incident,

while consecutive sentences should be imposed for offences arising from separate

20. There has always been a recognised discretion in the sentencing court where there are

different victims and especially if the offences are unconnected. This is seen in DPP v G.

“It is of course true and always has been true that where there have been a

number of offences relating to different victims and especially if they are

unconnected, there is discretion in the sentencing judge as to whether he or she

21. This is dealing with an appeal in respect of an offence of the theft of petrol worth €20

carried out by a young man. It was not identified to this court exactly how this offence

came to be before the Circuit Court other than an indication that it was sent forward at

22. We do not see how this offence could be viewed as anything other than a minor offence,

although we accept that relevant previous convictions might affect that assessment. In

this case, while there were relevant convictions for offences of dishonesty there was no

suggestion that he had convictions for this type of behaviour. We certainly cannot agree

that it can be characterised as “one of those horrible thefts”.

23. Although there is a discretion in a trial judge to impose consecutive sentences, that must

be done in a considered and reasoned manner. The trial judge did not give a considered

and reasoned explanation as to why he was doing so in this case. In the particular

circumstances, where there had been an early admission and plea of guilty, where he had

expressed remorse, where he was a young father of two children and had bought food

with the proceeds from the robbery, and where he had not served a sentence for offences

of dishonesty, we are of the view that there was an error in principle to impose a

24. Furthermore, a two and half year sentence even with 18 months suspended consecutive

to a sentence of 3 years with one suspended is clearly disproportionate to both the

25. In light of all the circumstances and in resentencing the appellant we are of the view that

the appropriate manner of dealing with this offence of theft is to impose a sentence of

three months to run concurrently with the sentence for the robbery offence.

Result: Allow and Vary

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Irish Court of Appeal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Irish Court of Appeal >> Director of Public Prosecutions v Donoghue [2019] IECA 304 (05 December 2019) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECA/2019/2019IECA304.html Cite as: [2019] IECA 304

Irish Court of Appeal