Court of Appeal increases arson sentences for three men due to undue leniency and aggravating factors.

THE COURT OF APPEAL

Neutral Citation: [2025] IECA 172

Record Numbers: 256CJA/2024

257CJA/2024

262CJA/2024

McCarthy J. Kennedy J. MacGrath J.

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 -

P.J. Lyons

- AND -

Keith McCormack Smith

- AND -

Jason Ryle

RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT of the Court delivered on the 17th day of July 2025 by Ms. Justice Isobel Kennedy.

1. This is an application brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions (“the Director”) pursuant to the provisions of s.2 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1993, seeking a review, on grounds of undue leniency, of sentences imposed on the three respondents in respect of counts of arson, unauthorised use and carriage in motor vehicles, theft, and attempted theft, committed on various dates between the 1st and 17th of May 2022.

Factual Background

2. Shortly before 05:00 on the 17th of May 2022 a stolen Toyota Avensis was twice reversed and rammed into the front of Tip Top Tanning Studio, 97 Tullow Street, Carlow, doused with petrol and set alight. The blaze engulfed the groundfloor salon and forced the evacuation of occupied apartments overhead. Monetary damage in the order of €290,000 was caused by the resultant fire.

3. Extensive CCTV footage, together with a video clip posted to TikTok, traced the movements of various vehicle stolen by the respondents it seems, in order to make the journey from Kildare to Carlow. A BMW and a Ford Galaxy were initially taken and used. In the course of the journey, the respondents stopped to refuel and to fill bottles with fuel which were later used as the accelerant for the fire. The Toyota Aventis was stolen in Carlow, which was the vehicle used to ram into the Tip Top Studio.

4. The arson was the culmination of a broader criminal sequence involving thefts of fuel and several motor vehicles between the 1st and 4th of May 2022 and during the night of the 16th of May and the early hours of the morning of the 17th of May 2022.

5. The footage established the following roles: Mr. McCormack Smith was the driver of the Avensis that rammed the premises and was first to flee; Mr. Ryle carried the accelerant, used it and ignited the vehicle; Mr. Lyons recorded the arson on a mobile phone; a fourth individual, Mr. Brooklyn Ward, who is not a party to the present application, remained in the BMW getaway car. Messrs. McCormack Smith, Ryle and Lyons all made limited admissions in interviews with gardaí.

6. Mr. McCormack Smith pleaded guilty to arson of the Tanning studio, 4 counts contrary to s.112 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, 2 counts of theft, and arson of the Toyota Avensis. In addition, 3 counts contrary to s.112, 4 counts of attempted theft, 5 counts of theft, and 1 count of possession of stolen property were taken into consideration.

7. Mr. Ryle pleaded guilty to arson of the tanning studio, arson of a Toyota Avensis, 1 count contrary to s.112, 2 counts of theft and 1 count of attempted theft. In addition, 2 counts contrary to s.112, 1 count of theft, and 2 counts of attempted theft were taken into consideration.

8. Finally, Mr. Lyons pleaded guilty to arson of the tanning studio, 2 counts contrary to s.112, 2 counts of theft and 1 count of attempted theft. In addition, 3 counts of attempted theft and 2 counts of theft were taken into consideration.

9. A significant amount of footage was played in the sentencing court, including CCTV footage and mobile phone footage. This Court viewed a condensed version: footage of the ramming and arson on the tanning salon.

Personal Circumstances of the Respondents

10. Mr. McCormack Smith was 21 at the time of the within offending and 23 at the time of sentence. He left school after his Junior Cert, developed substance addiction issues and claims to have acquired a drug debt in excess of €20,000.

11. Mr. McCormack Smith has 24 previous convictions, 8 of which were imposed on indictment: 8 convictions for offences contrary to s.112 of the Road Traffic Act, convictions for criminal damage, 4 theft convictions, a conviction under the Misuse of Drugs Act, a conviction for burglary, and a conviction for possession of a knife. He was on bail at the time of the commission of the within offences for a separate series of offences, for which a sentence of 2 years and 3 months was imposed on the 27th November 2024.

12. Mr. Ryle was 22 at the time of the within offending and 25 at the time of sentence. He also suffered chronic addiction and claimed coercion by other criminals.

13. Mr. Ryle has 29 previous convictions, 2 of which were imposed on indictment on the 8th of August 2021. The later offences were robbery and production of an article in the course of a dispute, for which he received a 3 year sentence and for which he was on bail at the time of the commission of the within offences.

14. We are informed that Mr. Lyons was 17 at the time of the within offending, however, his date of birth on the rule of court and psychological assessment report cites his date of birth as the 22nd March 2004, making him 18 years old at the time of these offences and 20 years at the time of sentence. He grew up in chaotic circumstances, commenced drug use at 12 and claims to have accrued a €4,000 drug debt.

15. Mr. Lyons has 17 previous convictions, which included offences for theft, endangerment, obstruction and under the Misuse of Drugs Act. None of those were brought on indictment, and he was also on bail at the time of the within offences, however, it seems that those matters have not yet concluded.

Sentences

Keith McCormack Smith

16. The following sentences were imposed on Mr. McCormack Smith: 6 years with the final 2 years suspended for a period of 2 years, on 1 count of arson relating to the tanning studio; 3 years and 9 months, imposed in respect the arson of the Toyota; 2 years 3 months imposed in respect of 4 counts of unlawful carriage/use of a motor vehicle contrary to s.112 of the Road Traffic Act; and 9 months in respect of 2 counts of theft.

Jason Ryle

17. The following sentences were imposed on Mr. Ryle: 5 ½ years with the final

2 years suspended for a period of 2 years on the arson of the tanning studio; 3 years 9 months on the arson of the Toyota; 2 years and 3 months on 1 count contrary to s.112; 9 months, imposed in respect of 2 counts of theft contrary to s.4 of the Criminal Justice (Theft & Fraud Offences) Act, 2001; 9 months imprisonment on 1 count of attempted theft. The sentences were concurrent inter se but consecutive to the 3 year sentence for which he was on bail, giving a sentence of 5 ½ years with the final two years suspended but consecutive to the

3 year sentence leading to a net custodial sentence of 6 ½ years imprisonment.

P.J. Lyons

18. The following sentences were imposed on Mr. Lyons: 5 ½ years with the final

2 years and 3 months suspended for a period of 2 years and 3 months on the arson count; 2 years on 2 counts of unlawful use of a motor vehicle contrary to s.112; 6 months on 2 counts of theft and 6 months on 1 count of attempted theft.

19. As stated, the balance of the counts referable to each respondent were taken into consideration.

Sentencing Remarks

20. The sentencing judge noted that the three respondents set out to Carlow from Dublin with the express purpose of offending, and committed a series of offences along the way, either to facilitate the main criminal enterprise, or opportunistically. The judge found that the three respondents acted on express orders from other organised crime elements.

21. The aggravating factors were identified as the co-ordination and planning involved, the numerous vehicles stolen to facilitate the enterprise, the ramming of the tanning studio, the use of an accelerant to set the vehicle and building alight, the effect on the residential apartments over the tanning studio, the reasonable foreseeability that the apartments were occupied, the need for the occupants of said apartments to evacuate during the night, the complete disregard for the safety of the occupants, and the recording and upload of a video to TikTok subsequent to the offending. The sentencing judge also found the previous convictions of each of the three respondents to be aggravating.

22. The sentencing judge noted that Mr. McCormack Smith was on bail at the time of the within offending, had 24 previous convictions, 8 of which were on indictment, and specifically, that he had numerous convictions for the unauthorised taking of vehicles, trespass, theft, and criminal damage. The judge also noted that a number of his convictions related to unauthorised taking of vehicles, which occurred on the 23rd of January 2022, shortly before the within offending.

23. He noted that Mr. Ryle was on bail for a robbery offence and for the offence of producing a weapon at the time of the within offending. By the time of sentence Mr. Ryle had received a sentence for these offences. The judge was told incorrectly that this was a three year sentence whereas it was in fact a five year sentence with 18 months suspended. He had 29 previous convictions, specifically, convictions relating to robbery, possession of knives, trespass, and possession of drugs.

24. He noted that Mr. Lyons was on bail at the time of the within offending and had 17 previous convictions: specifically convictions relating to possession of drugs for sale or supply, endangerment, and making off without payment.

25. The sentencing court therefore found the level of culpability of each of the three respondents to be the same, and found the offending in relation to the arson to be “towards the upper end of the mid-range” in terms of gravity, while the arson in respect of the Toyota vehicle fell at the beginning of the mid-range.

26. In respect of Mr. McCormack Smith, the sentencing judge nominated the following headline sentences: 8 years for count 12 relating to the arson of the tanning salon; 5 years for count 13 relating to the arson of the Toyota vehicle; 3 years for counts 2, 8, 9, and 10, those being the s.112 offences; and 1 year for counts 16 and 19 respectively, those being theft counts in relation to fuel.

27. The judge considered the following mitigating factors applied: the guilty plea, the addiction issues, the drug debt that apparently motivated his offending, his expression of interest in engaging with addiction services and his self-reporting as being drug free (though the judge noted a lack of any actual attempt to engage with said services). He took account of a psychological report and a probation report which assessed Mr. McCormack Smith at high risk of reoffending within the next 12 months, and suitable for probation supervision and the continued support of the probation service. He reduced the headline sentence on the arson offence to 6 years and suspended the final 2 years.

28. In respect of Mr. Ryle, the sentencing judge nominated the following headline sentences: 8 years for count 41 relating to the arson of the tanning salon; 5 years for count 42 relating to the arson of the Toyota vehicle; 3 years in respect of count 32, that being a s.112 offence; and 1 year for counts 35 and 37, those being thefts, and count 39, that being an attempted theft, respectively.

29. In terms of mitigation, the sentencing judge noted that Mr. Ryle entered an early guilty plea, was co-operative with the investigation, had a difficult upbringing, has indicated his willingness to engage in residential treatment post release, has taken responsibility for his offending, has two young children, that he is an enhanced status prisoner who was working in the prison and has apparently matured while in prison in respect of other offending. The judge reduced the sentence on the arson offence to 5 ½ years and suspended the final 2 years.

30. In respect of Mr. Lyons, the sentencing judge nominated the following headline sentences: 8 years for count 49 relating to the arson of the tanning salon;

3 years for counts 43 and 44, those being the s.112 offences; and 1 year for counts 52 and 53, those being theft counts, and 45, that being an attempted theft, respectively.

31. He noted the following factors in mitigation: the guilty plea, the admissions, his self-identification on CCTV, his difficult background, the fact that he had a drug dependency and that he was juvenile at the time (although this does not appear to be so). The judge also had regard to probation and psychological reports made available to the court. The judge reduced the headline sentence on the arson offence to 5 ½ years and suspended the final 2 years and 3 months.

Grounds of Application

32. Whilst several grounds are filed, the Director contends that the headline nominated for the arson offence was too low when the aggravating factors are considered, that too great a discount was afforded for mitigation, but the focus rests with the contention that there was an insufficient basis to suspend such a large portion of the sentences.

Director’s Submissions

33. The Director submits that the sentencing judge did not adequately reflect the overall gravity of the offences committed. She highlights the deliberate and premeditated nature of the arson, the fact that the respondents fled the scene immediately after the blaze began, the fact that the blaze was the culmination of a sustained series of offences, the significant damage caused to commercial and residential property, that the respondents were on bail at the time of the offending, that the attack was carried out while the occupants of the affected residential properties were asleep, and that the respondents had relevant previous convictions.

34. It is said that it was an error in principle for the sentencing court to categorise the arson as falling within the mid-range of gravity. The Director also submits that the effective custodial sentences imposed on the respondents were simply too low, and a significant departure from what would be appropriate.

35. The Director submits that the court erred in suspending large portions of the respective sentences without an evidential basis.

36. In relation to Mr. McCormack Smith, it is said that the judge erred in apparently relying on an aspect of the probation report stating that he would be suitable for probation supervision by part suspending his sentence, in circumstances where: Mr. McCormack Smith’s probation report placed him at a high risk of reoffending, there was no independent evidence for his ability to rehabilitate, there was no independent evidence that he was drug free, or evidence that he had taken steps to engage with addiction services. In relation to Mr. Ryle, it is said that the sentencing judge’s reference to his drug debt and willingness to engage in residential treatment was in error in circumstances where there was a “total absence of any evidence of concrete steps taken in this regard”. In relation to Mr. Lyons, it is said that there was also an absence of any evidence to rehabilitate, and the probation report referred to his abdicating responsibility for his actions.

37. The Director submits that, while the court had a discretion not to impose a consecutive sentence on Mr. McCormack Smith, the judge fell into error in suggesting that the totality principle bound him not to do so. It is also said that, in applying the totality principle in respect of Mr. Ryle’s sentence, the court failed to properly balance the offences before it. It is said that, in sentencing all of the respondents, the court failed to properly apply the totality principle with regard to all of the circumstances of the offending.

38. It is submitted that while the sentencing court had a discretion not to impose consecutive sentences, it erred in principle in not dealing with the matter in its sentencing remarks, in circumstances where consecutive sentences were manifestly appropriate on the facts. The Director also complains as to the giving of credit for time served reducing the effective sentence to be served, which, it is said, contributes to an aggregate failure to reflect the gravity of the offending in the final sentences to be served.

39. The Director places reliance upon a decision of Birmingham P in People (DPP) v Curtis [2022] IECA 184, where a sentence of 5 ½ years imprisonment in respect of a s.15A offence was imposed concurrently with a money laundering offence. The sentence was quashed and a 10 year sentence was imposed. In that case, this court held that the two offences were of real seriousness in their own right, even if they could be seen as relating to a single transaction.

40. The Director relies upon a number of comparator cases: People (DPP) v Justin Doody [2024] IECA 70, People (DPP) v Goodchild [2022] IECA 232, People (DPP) v Bourke [2020] IECA 371, People (DPP) v David Healy [2019] IECA 159, People (DPP) v Michael Farrell [2019] IECA 134, People (DPP) v Michael Rae [2019] IECA 108, People (DPP) v John Kelly [2018] IECA 412, People (DPP) v Christie [2017] IECA 110, People (DPP) v Flynn [2015] IECA 290, and People (DPP) v Harcourt [2011] IECCA 73. The Director also relies upon an extract from Prof. O’Malley’s Sentencing Law and Practice (3rd ed. 2016) at para. 15.41.

41. At oral hearing before this court, it was clarified that the state is asking for both the imposition of consecutive sentences to reflect the degree and nature of the series of offences, and for a higher headline sentence for the arson count to reflect the gravity and aggravating features of that specific offence.

Submissions of the Respondents

Mr. McCormack Smith

42. Counsel for Mr. McCormack Smith submits that the sentence imposed on Mr. McCormack Smith falls squarely within the discretion of a sentencing court.

43. In relation to the arson count, it is submitted that there is an absence of factors that would place the offending in the upper end of the spectrum of gravity. Specifically, it is noted that the offending was not a deliberate act of revenge with knowledge the residence was occupied, and was instead motivated by a drug debt.

44. It is said that the sentencing judge had proper regard to the sentencing bands established in jurisprudence of this court, setting an 8 year sentence, which falls towards the upper end of the 5-10 year middle band identified in DPP v Goodchild.

45. Counsel for Mr. McCormack Smith further submits that the sentencing court correctly identified the mitigation available: the guilty pleas, the drug debt as motivation, the expression of interest in working with addiction services, the fact that the probation service identified Mr. McCormack Smith as a suitable candidate for probation supervision and the continued support of the probation service, the fact that substance dependency was the primary contributing factor as identified by Dr. Fitzpatrick.

46. Counsel disputes the Director’s submission that there was a lack of evidence of a capacity to rehabilitate, pointing to the probation report and the psychological report, both of which recommended a period of probation supervision. Counsel relies on People (DPP) v Christie [2017] IECA 110 in support of the proposition that a suspended sentence constitutes a real punishment.

47. It is said that the sentence imposed was not a departure from the norm when similar cases are considered.

48. Reliance is placed upon an extract from Charleton J’s decision in People (DPP) v F.E. [2019] IESC 85 at para. 33 in response to the Director’s argument that consecutive sentences would have been appropriate in circumstances where the offending occurred on different days.

49. In relation to the consecutivity issue, counsel for Mr. McCormack Smith submits that the sentencing judge calculated the headline sentence taking account of the aggravating factor that multiple separate offences were committed at different times. It is said that imposing a consecutive sentence would therefore lead to a double counting. It is also said that, insofar as the appellant complains the sentencing judge erred in finding that the totality principle dictated consecutive sentences were not appropriate, the sentencing court did not in fact make such a finding, and simply found that the sentences were not required to be consecutive.

Mr. Ryle

50. Counsel for Mr. Ryle submits that the sentencing judge, with the benefit of significant evidence adduced at the sentencing hearing, had full regard to the seriousness of the offending, the damage caused, the culpability of the respondent, the aggravating factors, and correctly identified a headline sentence at the mid-range of gravity. It is also submitted that the sentencing judge was fully appraised of Mr. Ryle’s previous convictions and applied them as aggravating factors, and correctly applied the available mitigation in reducing the headline sentence and part suspending the lead sentence.

51. It is submitted that the sentencing court correctly identified Mr. Ryle’s engagement with the probation service, as well as his acknowledgement of his offending behaviour, and in those circumstances did not err in part suspending his sentence.

52. In relation to the totality issue, it is said that the sentencing court did not err or misapply the totality principle, in circumstances where the sentencing court properly considered the aggravating and mitigating factors, and properly dealt with the totality point in its remarks. It is also said that the Director is incorrect in submitting that the offences were discreet offences over a long period of time, and it is said that in fact they were part of a continuum and were properly considered as such.

53. It is also submitted that the sentencing judge correctly gave credit for time served.

54. Counsel for Mr. Ryle places reliance upon the decisions of People (DPP) v Clive Kavanagh [2020] IECA 13, People (DPP) v Stronge [2011] IECCA 79, People (DPP) v Harvey [2010] IECCA 73, People (DPP) v McGinty [2007] 1 IR 633, People (DPP) v de Paor and Zdanowski [2008] IECCA 137, and People (DPP) v Fanning [2015] IECA 11.

Mr. Lyons

55. Counsel for Mr. Lyons submits that the sentencing judge appropriately suspended the final 2 years and 3 months of the sentence, citing an extract from Prof. O’Malley’s Sentencing Law and Practice (2nd ed. 2006) at pg. 457 (itself citing a decision of the South Australian Supreme Court) in support of the proposition that a suspended sentence is a custodial sanction which effects punishment. People (DPP) v Wallace [2016] IECA 57 is also cited for this proposition. It is further submitted that the duration of the suspended portion of the sentence was appropriate having regard to the available mitigation in this case, with particular attention drawn to the early pleas, co-operation, admissions made, and personal circumstances of the accused.

56. Counsel for Mr. Lyons also relies on the following comparator cases: People (DPP) v Justin Doody, People (DPP) v Goodchild, People (DPP) v Bourke, People (DPP) v David Healy, People (DPP) v Michael Farrell, People (DPP) v Michael Rae, People (DPP) v John Kelly, People (DPP) v Christie, People (DPP) v Flynn, and People (DPP) v Harcourt.

Discussion

57. The principles for determining undue leniency applications are well established commencing with the decision in People (DPP) v Byrne [1995] 1 ILRM

279 and continuing inter alia with People (DPP) v Stronge, where McKechnie J. synopsised the relevant principles.

58. We commence our consideration with the onus being on the DPP to establish that the sentence imposed was unduly lenient so that the divergence between the sentence imposed and that which ought to have been imposed amounts to an error of principle before this Court may justifiably intervene. The sentence must constitute a substantial departure from the norm.

59. It seems to us that the primary issue rests with the sentence imposed for the arson of the tanning studio and the first argument made is that the judge erred in the assessment of gravity given the many aggravating features of this offence. In addition, the argument is advanced that the judge, when viewing the offending globally, ought to have taken account of this by elevating the notional sentence. Ultimately, the Director contends that 8 years by way of a notional sentence is simply too low and does not properly reflect the gravity of the respondents’ offending conduct. In addition, it is said that there was no evidential basis for suspending such a portion of the sentences imposed.

60. There is no doubt that the arson offences carried the hallmarks of very serious offending. The maximum sentence laid down by the Oireachtas for arson is that of life imprisonment. The bands may be said to range from 1-5 years, 5-

10 years, 10-15 years, with 15 years plus reserved for the most egregious offending.

61. We have examined the evidence adduced and the aggravating factors are many. We also note that there were many counts taken into consideration in the imposition of sentence, those counts included unauthorised use/carriage in a mechanically propelled vehicle, thefts, and attempted thefts. It appears from the evidence that the three respondents engaged in a campaign of this kind of activity involving numerous vehicles and consequently numerous victims. Whilst there was no victim impact evidence, the fact of the existence of victims cannot be discounted. In Mr. McCormack Smith’s case, in addition to the counts to which he pleaded, there were 3 offences contrary to s.112, 5 counts of theft, 4 counts of attempted theft and 1 count of possession of stolen property. Mr. Ryle was involved in the arson of the tanning studio and the Toyota, 3 counts under s.112,

3 of theft and 2 of attempted theft. Finally, Mr. Lyons in the arson of the tanning studio, 2 counts under s.112, 4 of theft and 4 of attempted theft.

62. Whilst the respondents pleaded guilty to some counts and others were taken into consideration, and while some counts were committed earlier in May 2022 and some on the 16th/17th May, it remains the position that each were engaged to a greater or lesser degree in what could be described as a type of campaign. Certainly, they had no compunction in breaking into and stealing from vehicles, or taking the vehicles themselves.

63. Insofar as the arson offence itself is concerned, annexed to the arson of the Toyota, this was a very serious offence. The aggravating factors are obvious: there was considerable planning to this event, the taking of a number of vehicles to travel to Carlow, the purchase of fuel as an accelerant, the use of a getaway vehicle, the attack on a business premises which was situated below residential apartments which needed to be evacuated, it was committed at night, the damage caused was very high and whilst we have been told that the property was insured, this does not mean there was no financial loss. The incident was recorded by one of the respondents: Mr. Lyons. Each of the three respondents has relevant previous convictions and each was on bail at the time of the offending. The fact that the offending was preceded by many offences involving vehicles serves to elevate the penalty for the primary offending.

64. Insofar as the element of suspension is concerned, first when considering Mr. McCormack Smith, the notional headline sentence was reduced by 25% to that of

6 years, the judge set out the mitigating factors, however, the issue of the motivation being attributed to an element of coercion is not in our view a mitigating factor and thus cannot reduce the headline sentence in that sense, it instead falls for consideration when nominating the notional sentence as potentially extenuating an accused’s moral culpability and thus reducing the notional sentence. Moreover, he has a considerable number of previous convictions which lead to a progressive loss in mitigation.

65. The judge then proceeded to suspend a portion of the sentence with reference to the circumstances already stated and whilst it might be said that the suspension was also in consideration of mitigation, the court was cognisant of the contents of the reports submitted on this respondent’s behalf and imposed conditions to reflect that. The probation officer assessed him at a high risk of reoffending and considered supervision appropriate to address that, However, we find ourselves in agreement with the Director that the judge suspended too much of the sentence.

66. Regarding Mr. Ryle, the judge reduced the 8 years to 6 years in light of mitigation, reduced that by 6 months to take account of the totality principle as the sentence was mandated to be consecutive and then suspended 2 years of the

5 ½ years under probation supervision. Again, we take the view the suspended period was too great.

67. Finally, in Mr. Lyons’ case, the judge reduced the notional sentence to 5 ½ years to take account of mitigation and placed emphasis on the belief that he was

17 years old at the time. He then indicated that he was going to take that into account also in suspending a greater portion of the sentence and suspended the final 2 years and 3 months of the sentence, leaving a net sentence of 2 years and

9 months. However, we do not consider that the suspended portion was excessive in his case given his youth.

68. However, it seems to us, given the many aggravating factors present, that the ultimate custodial sentence of four years in Mr. McCormack Smith’s case for the arson offence; 3 ½ years in Mr. Ryle’s case and 2 years and 9 months in Mr. Lyons case does not meet the gravity of the offending in issue. While it is clear that the judge in the Circuit Court approached the task of sentencing with conspicuous care, we are driven to the conclusion that the sentence imposed was unduly lenient. We believe the nomination of 8 years as the notional sentence, and the suspension of such a portion of the sentence in the case of two of the respondents led to a sentence which was unduly lenient: we will therefore quash the sentences imposed and proceed to resentence, and we do so as of today’s date.

Re-Sentence

69. The judge’s approach was to impose sentence on a concurrent basis and while there might have been an argument for consecutive sentences, particularly where some of the offending in respect of certain respondents was committed at a remove from the arson offence, but where the judge was dealing with offending over a limited time period, and where the arson offence was clearly the most serious, we can see why the judge adopted this approach and we will do likewise.

70. However, as Mr. McCormack Smith has in the meantime, been sentenced for an offence for which he was on bail when he committed these offences, any sentence we impose upon him must be imposed consecutively. It transpires that this respondent was on bail at the relevant time for a s.15A offence for which a sentence of 2 years was imposed, that being on bill no. 1707/2021. He was sentenced on the same day in respect of bill no. 1062/2022 for offences of possession of stolen property, theft and a s.112 offence, for which a sentence of

2 years and 3 months was imposed consecutive to the 2 year sentence. Thus any sentence imposed by this Court must be consecutive to the cumulative sentence of 4 years and 3 months.

71. Mr. Ryle’s sentence was imposed on a consecutive basis which was mandatory as he was on bail and, for that offence a sentence of 5 years with 18 months suspended was imposed.

72. It seems that the offence for which Mr. Lyons was on bail has not been finalised.

73. In light of the aggravating factors to which we have already alluded, we consider the appropriate headline sentence in respect of Mr. McCormack Smith to be that of 10 years imprisonment on the arson count, that is count 12. That is the appropriate headline sentence to take account of the aggravating factors and also the fact that the sentence is imposed on a global basis to take account of those offences which were taken into consideration. Mr. McCormack Smith has a greater number of those offences.

74. We reduce the 10 year sentence to 8 ½ years to take account of mitigation and bearing in mind that there is a progressive loss in mitigation given his previous record. That sentence must be imposed consecutive to the 4 years and 3 months cumulative sentence, giving a total sentence of 12 years and 9 months. For clarity, the sentence is imposed consecutive to the sentence imposed on bill no. 1062/2022.

75. To give effect to the totality principle, we will adjust the sentence of 8 ½ years to that of 8 years giving a total sentence of 12 years and 3 months and we will suspend the final year of the sentence on the same terms as in the court below.

76. We now move to sentence Mr. Ryle, we consider the appropriate notional sentence to be that of 9 ½ years. It is slightly less given that Mr. Ryle has less matters to be taken into consideration. Nonetheless his culpability is high, he was the man who purchased and used the accelerant.

77. We reduce that to 8 years imprisonment, again he suffers a progressive loss of mitigation. The sentence imposed in the court below was consecutive to an earlier sentence imposed in respect of bill no. 82/2021. To ensure a proportionate sentence we will reduce the sentence to 7 years, consecutive to the sentence imposed in respect of bill no. 82/2021, and suspend the final year of that sentence on the same terms as in the court below.

78. Regarding Mr. Lyons, we impose a 9 year headline sentence, he has marginally fewer matters to be taken into consideration and whilst not 17 years old at the time of the commission of the offences, he was the youngest of the accused men. We will reduce the headline sentence for mitigation to a sentence of 6 ½ years and we will suspend the final 2 years of that sentence on the same terms. This sentence is backdated to the date the sentence was imposed in the court below.

79. The sentences imposed on the balance of the counts remains as imposed by the sentencing judge.