Court of Appeal reduces sentences for violent disorder, firearms, and dangerous driving causing death.

APPROVED NO REDACTION NEEDED

THE COURT OF APPEAL Neutral Citation: [2025] IECA 272 Record Numbers:31CJA/2025, 32CJA/2025, 37CJA/2025, 38CJA/2025

Kennedy J Burns J Collins 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 -

KIERAN FOGARTY RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT of the Court delivered on the 6th day of November, 2025 by Ms. Justice Tara Burns.

1. This is an application pursuant to s. 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 (‘the 1993 Act’) seeking a review of the sentences imposed on the respondent on grounds of undue leniency.

2. The respondent appeared before Limerick Circuit Criminal Court on four bill numbers which related to different criminal incidents occurring on separate occasions between April and October 2023. The respondent had already entered signed pleas of guilty before the District Court on three of the bill numbers. On the fourth bill number, he entered an early plea of guilty once before the Circuit Court, having indicated in the District Court that he would plead guilty to the charges proffered against him. The bill numbers and the offences he pleaded guilty to are as follows:-

• LKDP0090/2024 (‘90/24 Violent Disorder’) related to offences which occurred on 11 April 2023 of violent disorder contrary to s. 15 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 and production of an article in the course of a dispute contrary to s. 11 of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act 1990. The respondent signed pleas of guilty in the District Court;

• LKDP0075/2024 (‘75/24 Firearms’) related to offences which occurred on 21 May 2024 of possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life contrary to s.15(1)(a) of the Firearms Act 1925 (as amended) and threat to kill contrary to s. 5 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. The respondent signed pleas of guilty in the District Court;

• LKDP0101/2024 (‘101/24 Dangerous Driving Causing Death’) related to various driving offences which occurred on 13 October 2023, to include an offence of dangerous driving causing death contrary to s.53(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (as amended) (the ‘1961 Act’);

failing to offer assistance contrary to s. 106(1)(aa) of the 1961 Act;

and failing to report an occurrence contrary to s. 106(1)(d)(ii) of the 1961 Act. The appellant entered pleas of guilty before the Circuit Court;

• LKDP0092/2024 (‘92/24 Drugs’) related to a number of controlled drugs offences which occurred on 24 October 2023 to include possession of controlled drugs, namely cocaine, MDMA and alprazolam for the purpose of sale or supply contrary to s. 15 of the Misuse of Drugs Acts 1977 (as amended). The respondent signed pleas of guilty in the District Court;

3. The sentencing hearing in respect of all four bill numbers was held on 13 December 2024, with sentence pronounced on 30 January 2024, as follows:-

• 90/24 Violent Disorder – 2 years’ imprisonment;

• 75/24 Firearms – 8 years’ imprisonment;

• 101/24 Dangerous Driving Causing Death – 6.5 years’ imprisonment;

• 92/24 Drugs – 3 years’ imprisonment

All sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

4. Accordingly, the effective sentence imposed on the respondent in respect of all four bill numbers was an 8 year term of imprisonment.

Personal Circumstances of the Respondent

5. The respondent was 19 years of age at the time of the offending. He had

46 previous convictions at the time of sentencing, including 8 relevant convictions for driving without insurance, 7 for dangerous driving, and 2 for failing to report an occurrence. Most of those convictions were recorded after the incidents which are the subject matter of this appeal. He was also the subject of a specific bail condition not to drive a motor vehicle which was imposed on 14 March 2023. At the time of all of the offending the subject matter of this appeal, the respondent was on bail in respect of other offences.

The Offending 90/2024 Violent Disorder

6. On the afternoon of 11 April 2023, the respondent and two accomplices attended at a convenience shop in Carew Park, Limerick. Another group of four individuals arrived and entered the shop. Meanwhile, the respondent and his accomplices waited outside. When one of the opposing group emerged from the shop, he was attacked by the respondent and his accomplices. The respondent was in possession of the handlebars of a bicycle and used this as a weapon to strike the victim. He also attacked the car the victim had arrived in by jumping on the bonnet, hitting the front window with the implement he was holding, and breaking the driver’s window. Thereupon he took a phone from inside the car and smashed it on the ground. CCTV footage, from which the respondent was identifiable, depicted the event.

7. The sentencing judge identified the aggravating factors as:

a) the violent disorder took place at the entrance to a shop in the afternoon during business hours when ordinary members of the public were likely to be present;

b) the respondent came armed with and produced an implement which he used as a weapon;

c) the incident appeared to be part of some feud between rival criminal groups; and

d) the harm done

8. The sentencing judge found that the offending came within the upper end of the lower range of seriousness and identified a headline sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment. Having regard to the mitigatory factors, namely the respondent’s age and plea of guilty, he imposed a term of imprisonment of

2 years’ imprisonment.

9. The applicant does not take issue with either the headline sentence identified or the reduction provided for by the sentencing judge in respect of mitigatory factors.

10. We also are of the opinion that an unduly lenient sentence does not arise with respect to this bill number.

75/24 Firearms

11. In the afternoon of 4 June 2023, the respondent and an accomplice drove to an address in the Southill area of Limerick. The mother of a man who lived at the address and whom the occupants had a dispute with, came over to the car. She recognised the respondent. She was holding an infant at that time. Her son ran into the house as the car approached. A number of serious threats were directed at her son with a threat being made that he would be shot dead. Approximately 6 minutes later, a number of shots were discharged by the respondent at the house of a relative of the man who had just been threatened, as the respondent drove by the house. A number of people, including neighbours and young children, were outside the house at the time of the shooting. The respondent was identified as the driver and shooter by an eyewitness.

12. The respondent was arrested and detained. He denied any involvement in the incident until he was presented with CCTV evidence. The respondent then accepted that he was present at the scene but denied that threats were made and claimed that they had been confronted by three men with a shotgun and that his accomplice fired the shots in order to scare the men.

He asserted that his behaviour was fuelled by cocaine use.

13. The sentencing judge identified the aggravating factors as:-

a) the respondent was armed with a semi-automatic weapon;

b) his indiscriminate use of a powerful illegally held firearm;

c) he discharged shots at a private dwelling where adults and children were present;

d) the firearm was not recovered;

e) he was heavily under the influence of cocaine;

f) the earlier interaction with the mother of the person they threatened;

g) his involvement in a criminal grouping involved in organised crime.

14. A headline sentence of 12.5 years’ imprisonment was identified by the sentencing judge. In light of the signed pleas of guilty and the respondent’s co-operation in interview (as found by the sentencing judge), the sentencing judge was of the opinion that exceptional and specific circumstances existed which allowed him to depart from the mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment required pursuant to statute.

Having considered the mitigatory factors present, including remorse, the sentencing judge imposed an eight year term of imprisonment on the respondent.

15. The applicant submitted that a reference by the sentencing judge to reckless behaviour on the part of the respondent (‘utter recklessness of his actions’) established that the sentencing judge viewed the respondent as acting recklessly rather than intentionally when discharging the firearm. It was submitted that this was an error on the judge’s part when the offence charged and pleaded to related to intentional behaviour. It was further submitted that the sentencing judge erred in finding that exceptional and specific circumstances existed which permitted him to depart from the mandatory minimum sentence required by statute. Finally, it was submitted on behalf of the applicant that too much credit was given for the mitigatory factors present in the case.

101/24 Dangerous Driving Causing Death

16. On 13 October 2023 at approximately 9:30pm, Joseph Drennan, a 21 year old college student, was waiting at a bus stop in Limerick City having finished work in a local restaurant. At the same time, a Garda patrol car was overtaken at speed by a BMW being driven by the respondent (without insurance) approximately 3km away. The Garda followed the vehicle and activated his blue lights for a period due to the speed the BMW was travelling. However, the Garda disengaged from pursuit after a period. At 9:48pm the respondent drove at extreme speed through a red traffic light.

In an effort to avoid a collision with one car, he collided with the driver’s side of a Volkswagen Golf. The collision caused the rear wheel of the respondent’s vehicle to detach and he lost control of the vehicle, which resulted in the respondent’s vehicle spinning around several times as it careered down the road. The respondent’s vehicle mounted the footpath and collided with the wall where Mr. Drennan was standing, pinning him underneath the car. The deceased suffered multiple traumatic injuries, including severe head injuries and was pronounced dead later that night in hospital. After the collision, the respondent wiped down the inside of the car before fleeing the scene approximately 14 seconds after the collision. A match to his DNA was subsequently discovered within the car.

17. A forensic collision investigator estimated that the respondent was driving at 122kmph as he drove through the red light. The entire distance of approximately 3.5km travelled by the respondent from when he overtook the Garda vehicle was governed by a 50kmph speed limit with a continuous white line and was in a built up area in the vicinity of the University of Limerick. The BMW was demolished on the driver’s side such was the impact of the collision with the Volkswagen.

18. Gardaí retrieved material from the respondent’s social media accounts. At 9:45pm the respondent recorded and sent a video via Facebook messenger showing the Garda car in the rear-view mirror. The speedometer was visible in the video and showed that the respondent was travelling at a minimum of 100km. Phone communications revealed that the respondent was aware very shortly after the incident that the deceased had suffered significant injuries. An associate was directed to the hospital to ascertain the deceased’s condition. The respondent evaded arrest for almost a week after the incident, despite an extensive search for him and calls from his family to hand himself in. Text communications established that the respondent was of the view that his quick wipe down of the vehicle after the incident might result in the guards not identifying him as the perpetrator.

19. When subsequently arrested and detained by An Garda Síochána, the respondent accepted he was driving the vehicle, although he denied he knew that Mr. Drennan was underneath his vehicle. The applicant referenced the guilty pleas entered by the respondent to the offences of failing to assist and failing to report an occurrence as not aligning with that position.

20. The respondent had 5 outstanding bench warrants at that time. He also was in breach of a bail condition imposed on 14 March 2023 not to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle.

21. The deceased’s sister gave victim impact evidence relating to the deceased and the serious impact his death has had on his family. He clearly was an exceptional young man who excelled at everything he did and who had a promising career ahead of him. His death, and the manner of it, has had an obviously devastating effect on his siblings and parents.

22. The aggravating factors identified by the sentencing judge were:-

a) The respondent’s actions causing the death of Mr Drennan;

b) The manner of the respondent’s driving in an urban area for a considerable distance, the extreme speed and the manner of deliberately breaking a red light;

c) The respondent was the sole cause of the collision by breaking a red light at speed on the wrong side of the road;

d) The respondent used his phone to record his encounter with the Garda car that followed him while driving at speed and shared this recording with his associates;

e) At the relevant time, various bench warrants had been issued for the respondent’s arrest. He had been on bail for road traffic matters and was prohibited from driving by the bail conditions set;

f) He was not insured to drive the vehicle;

g) He failed to remain at the scene;

h) He made efforts to take forensic countermeasures to protect himself

- wiping down the car - all while Mr Drennan was still alive and catastrophically injured;

i) He made no effort to check and see if the driver of the other vehicle had been injured in the collision;

j) From social media retrieved, it was evident he was fully aware of the consequences of his driving for Mr Drennan;

k) The vehicle was relatively new to Mr Fogarty;

l) His previous relevant convictions.

23. The sentencing judge placed the offending at the very highest level and identified a headline sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment in respect of dangerous driving causing death. Having regard to the mitigatory factors present which included the early guilty plea, the respondent’s age, his admissions and remorse (both of which the sentencing judge determined were qualified having regard to his behaviour after the incident), he imposed a term of imprisonment of 6.5 years’ imprisonment. In relation to the offences of failing to offer assistance and failing to report an occurrence, the sentencing judge identified a headline sentence of 9 years’ imprisonment which he reduced to 6 years’ imprisonment having regard to mitigatory factors. The other driving offences were taken into consideration and a 15 year disqualification period was imposed on the respondent.

24. The applicant submitted that too much credit was given to the respondent for mitigatory factors: that the only mitigation which was available to the respondent was his early guilty plea and his age. Furthermore, it was submitted that the offences of failing to assist and failing to report an occurrence were distinct and separate offences and should have attracted a consecutive sentence to the sentence imposed in respect of dangerous driving causing death.

92/2024 Drugs

25. On 24 October 2023, Gardaí who were targeting an organised criminal group tracked them to an address in a remote area of Cork. Two Gardaí made their way to the rear of the property where they could see into the kitchen through the door of the property. On the table they could see two large amounts of cocaine wrapped in plastic along with drug paraphernalia.

When the occupants became aware of the Gardaí, they attempted to flush items down the toilet. Armed Support Unit members gained entry to the premises and seized various controlled substances found throughout the premises, mixing agents, a cocaine press and €11,155 in cash. The two packages of cocaine had a value of €784 and €7,406 respectively. Cannabis found on the kitchen table was valued at €82. Gardaí recovered 77 ecstasy tablets valued at €770 and 116 alprazolam tablets valued at €232. On a later date, a further quantity of cocaine and a mobile phone was found in a sewage pipe on the premises. This cocaine was valued at €13,356.

26. As a result of this event, the respondent was apprehended by the Gardaí.

He made limited admissions when interviewed. He accepted ownership of the cannabis and a small amount of cocaine and ecstasy found in his bedroom. At the sentencing hearing, evidence was led that the respondent was a member of an organised crime group involved in the sale and distribution of drugs in Limerick City.

27. With respect of the offence of possession of cocaine for sale or supply, the sentencing judge identified a headline sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment.

Having regard to mitigatory factors, the sentencing judge imposed a term of imprisonment of 3 years. Other sentences were imposed in respect of other offences arising from the event.

28. The applicant submitted that the headline sentence identified by the sentencing judge was substantially too low having regard to the fact that the facts established that cocaine was being prepared for circulation in the Limerick region and that the offence took place within the context of a criminal organisation.

Grounds of Appeal

29. The applicant has appealed all of the sentences imposed on the respondent.

Whilst there are individual grounds of complaint with respect to particular aspects of the sentencing regime adopted by the sentencing judge, the principal ground of complaint is that by imposing concurrent sentences in respect of all of the offending, the seriousness of the individual offending is not reflected, particularly the offending involved in 101/24 Dangerous Driving Causing Death.

Concession of the Respondent

30. At the commencement of the oral hearing before us, Counsel on behalf of the respondent made a concession that the sentence imposed on the respondent in respect of the entire offending the subject matter of the appeal was unduly lenient and that this had arisen as a result of the sentencing judge failing to impose a consecutive sentence in respect of 101/24 Dangerous Driving Causing Death.

31. This was a helpful and appropriate concession for the respondent to make as the particular facts arising in relation to the offending outlined required that a consecutive sentence be imposed to enable a proportionate sentence be imposed.

Discussion and Determination

32. The principles for determining undue leniency are well established and are set out in The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v. Stronge [2011] IECCA 79 which this Court adopts. In essence, the applicant must prove that the sentence imposed constitutes a substantial departure from the appropriate sentence such that an error of principle is established, before this Court will intervene.

33. In the first instance, it is appropriate to note that a mandatory requirement to impose a consecutive sentence did not arise in respect of any of the offending the subject matter of the appeal. Whilst the respondent was on bail during all of the offending, and was subject to a bail condition not to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle, the offence in respect of which he was on bail was not before the sentencing court and had already been dealt with separately before the District Court by the time sentence came to be passed in the instant matter.

34. As already stated, consecutive sentencing was required to some degree with respect to the offences before the sentencing court to ensure that a proportionate sentence was arrived at. As accepted by the respondent, an error in principle was made by the sentencing judge not to make the sentence he imposed in respect of 101/24 Dangerous Driving Causing Death consecutive to the 75/24 Firearms.

35. The applicant submitted that within 101/24 Dangerous Driving Causing Death, the sentences imposed in respect of failing to assist and failing to report an occurrence, should also have been made consecutive to the sentence imposed in respect of Dangerous Driving Causing Death. We do not agree. We are of the opinion that the decision in DPP v. Collins [2024] IECA 322 is not apposite to the facts of this case. That case related to different victims being targeted in the course of an extended dangerous driving spree. While the respondent’s failure to assist and failure to report an occurrence are reprehensible, his actions in these regards form part of a single transaction to the offence of Dangerous Driving Causing Death and the imposition of a consecutive sentence between these offences is not necessary to achieve a proportionate outcome.

36. The applicant also made complaint about aspects of the decision reached by the sentencing judge in respect of the sentences ultimately arrived at in respect of each bill number (separate to the issue of consecutive sentencing).

37. With respect to 75/24 Firearms, the applicant complained that specific and exceptional circumstances did not exist which permitted the sentencing judge to depart from the 10 year minimum mandatory sentence. We are of the view that the sentencing judge did not err in this regard. A signed guilty plea was entered by the respondent and he had co-operated with the investigating guards and made certain admissions during interview. In those circumstances, the sentencing judge did not err in finding that the necessary conditions were in existence which permitted him to depart from the minimum mandatory sentence.

38. With respect to the credit given to the respondent for mitigatory factors, it was suggested that the sentencing judge, for some of the offending, credited the respondent for co-operation with the various investigations to a greater extent than was appropriate. It was submitted that a perusal of the memos of interviews revealed this not to be warranted. In respect of all of the offending before the Court, the respondent entered the earliest pleas of guilty possible. He is entitled to credit for this. However, the level of credit to be afforded is dependent on the value of the plea which is measured by virtue of the available evidence against the respondent. In 101/24 Dangerous Driving Causing Death, there was significant evidence against the respondent in terms of the forensic and mobile phone evidence against him. Accordingly, while he is entitled to a discount for his guilty plea, it must be measured by virtue of this. We are of the view that the sentencing judge erred by reducing the headline sentence from 10 years’ imprisonment to a sentence of 6.5 years. This reflects an excessive level afforded for mitigation having regard to the case against the respondent and the value of the plea. Furthermore, it resulted in a sentence being imposed for Dangerous Driving Causing Death which was not proportionate to the offending.

39. We are also of the opinion that in 92/24 Drugs, the headline sentence identified by the sentencing judge of 5 years’ imprisonment in respect of the s. 15 possession of cocaine for sale or supply was also an error in principle, particularly having regard to the purpose of the possession, namely supply of cocaine to the wider Limerick area. Furthermore, this endeavour was being carried out within the context of a criminal organisation. We also have had regard to the sentence imposed on the respondent’s co-accused in this regard where headline sentences of 6 years were identified with 4 years imprisonment imposed. We are of the opinion that the headline sentence identified in the instant matter resulted in an unduly lenient sentence being imposed.

40. Accordingly, we will quash the sentences imposed on 75/24 Firearms (as the principle of totality will need to be considered in relation to this bill

number); 101/24 Dangerous Driving Causing Death and 92/24 Drugs and proceed to re-sentence the respondent as of today’s date.

Re-Sentence

41. We have had regard to the facts of the individual offending in respect of these bill numbers. We are of the opinion that the sentencing judge correctly identified the aggravating factors present in the offending (which we have already set out). With respect to mitigatory factors, the respondent is entitled to have his very earliest pleas of guilty, his age, his co-operation (to the extent set out in his memoranda), and his remorse as it presented at the time of the sentencing hearing taken into account.

42. On 92/24 Drugs, taking into consideration Count numbers 1, 3, 4, 5 and 8, we are of the view that on Count 7, a headline sentence of 6 years’ imprisonment is appropriate which we will reduce to 4 years’ imprisonment and which we impose. In respect of Count 2, we impose a 1 year term of imprisonment; on Count 6, we impose a term of imprisonment of 18 months; and on Count 9, we impose a term of imprisonment of 2 years. All of these sentences are to date from 24 October 2023 and are to run concurrently to each other and to the term of imprisonment imposed on 75/24 Firearms.

43. On 75/24 Firearms, in respect of Count 1 and taking Count 2 into account, we are of the view that a headline sentence of 12 and a half years’ imprisonment is appropriate which we will reduce to 8 years’ imprisonment having regard to the mitigatory facts present. We will return to the term of imprisonment to be imposed having considered totality.

44. On 101/24 Dangerous Driving Causing Death, in respect of Count 1, taking into consideration Count numbers 2, and 5 to 10, we are of the opinion that a headline sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment is appropriate but having regard to mitigatory factors, this should be reduced to 8 years’ imprisonment. In respect of Count numbers 3 and 4, we are of the opinion that a headline sentence of 9 years’ imprisonment is appropriate and a term of imprisonment of 6 years is imposed having regard to mitigatory factors.

These sentences (on 101/24 Dangerous Driving Causing Death) are to commence at the lawful expiration of the sentence imposed on 75/24 Firearms and are to run concurrently to each other. On Counts 1, 3 and 4, a disqualification period of 20 years is to apply from the date of the respondent’s release from prison.

45. The sentences imposed on 101/24 Dangerous Driving Causing Death are to be consecutive to the sentences imposed on 75/24 Firearms. Accordingly, in light of the imposition of a consecutive sentence, we must have regard and take due account of the totality principle. Considering this principle, we will further reduce the sentence indicated on Count 1 in 75/24 Firearms by one year and impose a term of imprisonment of 7 years to date from 24 October 2023. In respect of Count 1 on 101/24 Dangerous Driving Causing Death, we will further reduce the sentence indicated by one year and impose a term of imprisonment of 7 years on that count to commence at the lawful expiration of the sentence imposed on 75/24 Firearms. We will further suspend twelve months from the sentence imposed on 101/24 Dangerous Driving Causing Death for a period of 12 months on condition that the respondent keep the peace and be of good behaviour and that he comply with all conditions required by the probation services with whom he is to engage before his release from prison.

46. In the interests of clarity, the sentence imposed on 90/23 Violent Disorder is to run concurrently to the sentence imposed on 75/24 Firearms.

Approved No Redaction Needed