Court of Appeal quashes unduly lenient suspended sentences for dangerous driving and re-sentences with concurrent terms.

APPROVED NO REDACTION NEEDED

THE COURT OF APPEAL Neutral Citation: [2025] IECA 294 Record Numbers: 276CJA/2024, 277CJA/2024

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 -

JIM CONNORS RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT of the Court delivered on the 1st day of December, 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 two separate bills of indictment on grounds of undue leniency.

2. On Bill No. 626/2023, the respondent pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing serious harm contrary to s.53(1) of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, as amended (‘the 1961 Act’) (Count 1); failing to offer assistance to a victim, contrary to s. 106(1)(aa) of the 1961 Act (Counts 2, 3, and 4); and driving without a driving licence contrary to s. 38(1) of the 1961 Act (Count 9).

These offences occurred on 22 February 2022.

3. On Bill No. 73/2023, the respondent pleaded guilty to reckless endangerment contrary to s.13 of Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. He subsequently entered pleas of guilty to dangerous driving, drug driving, driving without insurance and driving without a licence. These offences were committed on 19 March 2022.

4. On Count 1 of Bill No. 626/2023, the respondent was sentenced to 4 and a half years’ imprisonment. On Counts 2, 3 and 4, the respondent was sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment. The terms of imprisonment imposed were fully suspended on certain terms and conditions. All other counts were taken into consideration.

5. On Bill No. 73/2023, the respondent received a 3 year term of imprisonment which was suspended in its entirety for a period of 5 years on the same terms and conditions. All other counts were taken into consideration.

6. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The respondent also received a 10 year disqualification from driving.

Background Bill 626/2023

7. On the night of 19 February 2022, the appellant drove his motor vehicle through a red traffic light at a significant junction over the N11 and collided with a taxi, containing three persons. The taxi was pushed towards a bridge which was an overpass on the N11 motorway. The appellant exited his car, looked into the taxi, and then ran from the scene. He was identified from CCTV footage and was subsequently arrested and detained. When interviewed he indicated that he knew nothing about the incident.

8. The respondent was disqualified from driving at the time of the offending.

9. One of the victims in the taxi sustained severe injuries as a result of this incident, including cracked neck discs, back discs, and ribs. He sustained a broken tibia of his left leg and a fractured right ankle. He also suffered psychological trauma.

Bill No. 73/2023

10. In the early hours of the morning of 19 March 2022, Gardaí observed the respondent at a petrol station and became suspicious of his movements.

They noticed that there were no visible discs on the respondent’s vehicle.

Gardaí drove their vehicle towards the respondent’s vehicle, at which point the respondent drove away at speed, almost colliding with the Garda vehicle. Gardaí activated their lights and sirens and pursued the respondent in a high speed chase. The vehicle came to a sudden complete stop in front of the Garda vehicle and then accelerated back towards the Garda vehicle.

The Garda driver took evasive measures to avoid being hit by the respondent’s vehicle. Ultimately the vehicle went down a cul-de-sac where Gardaí were able to block its escape. The respondent had moved to the passenger seat and denied that he had been driving the vehicle. He refused to exit the vehicle and resisted arrest.

11. Gardaí noticed a smell of alcohol from the respondent. He was arrested, detained, and had a blood sample taken. The blood sample showed a reading for alcohol which was under the legal limit. The sample was also analysed for drugs which disclosed the presence of cocaine over the legal limit.

Personal Circumstances of the Respondent

12. The respondent was 27 years of age at the time of the offending in this matter. He is married with six young children. The respondent has a history of severe alcohol and drug abuse. He has 36 previous convictions, including

10 road traffic offences, including dangerous driving. He also was disqualified from driving for a 6 year period at the time of the offending.

The respondent had lost several members of his family in a traumatic event in 2015.

Sentencing Judge’s Determination

13. On 8 May 2023, the sentencing judge heard evidence in relation to Bill No.

73/2023. She adjourned sentencing to permit the respondent engage in rehabilitation, commenting that the appellant needed to be at home with his wife and children.

14. On 6 October 2023, the sentencing judge heard evidence in relation to Bill No. 626/2023. She again adjourned sentencing to facilitate the respondent’s rehabilitation.

15. On 14 October 2024, the sentencing judge proceeded to impose sentence.

16. On Bill 626/23, she identified the aggravating factors as:

a) The manner of dangerous driving in which the respondent engaged, which had the potential to lead to a fatal accident;

b) Driving through a red light prior to the collision;

c) Leaving the scene of the accident having witnessed the injuries caused to the occupants of the other vehicle;

d) Failing to call emergency services;

e) The serious and life-changing injuries sustained by the injured parties;

f) Non-cooperation with Gardaí during interviews;

g) The fact that the respondent was disqualified from driving at the time of this incident;

h) The respondent’s extensive history of 36 previous convictions, to include 10 for road traffic offences and convictions for driving without insurance.

17. The mitigating factors were identified as:-

a) The respondent’s early plea of guilty;

b) A trial date was not sought;

c) The respondent’s age and personal circumstances to include being a father to six young children;

d) The family tragedy he experienced in 2015;

e) The family supports that were in place;

f) The respondent’s acknowledged mental health issues;

g) The respondent’s engagement with the Coolmine Rehabilitation Centre programme;

h) The respondent’s engagement with various services demonstrating the respondent’s ongoing rehabilitative efforts;

i) The respondent’s insight into the impact of his actions on the injured parties.

18. On Count 1 (dangerous driving causing serious harm), the sentencing judge identified a headline sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment which she reduced to 4 and a half years’ imprisonment to reflect mitigatory factors. On Counts 2, 3 and 4, she identified a headline sentence of 6 years’ imprisonment, which she reduced to 4 years’ imprisonment. She then determined to suspend the sentence in its entirety for a period of 5 years.

19. On Bill No. 73/2023, the sentencing judge identified the aggravating factors as:-

a) The serious nature of the offending in this matter;

b) The respondent led Gardaí on a long pursuit, having driven away at speed from Gardaí at a petrol station;

c) The respondent’s offending put front line members of An Garda Síochána and other members of the public at serious risk;

d) The respondent was subject to a 6 year disqualification from driving;

e) The respondent was driving after having committed the offences contained in bill number 626/2023 a month previously;

f) The cumulative seriousness of the two matters.

20. She identified the same mitigatory factors as earlier outlined.

21. On Count 1 (reckless endangerment), a headline sentence of 4 and a half years’ imprisonment was identified which the sentencing judge reduced to

3 years’ imprisonment to reflect mitigatory factors. She then determined to suspend the sentence in its entirety for a period of 5 years.

22. The suspension of the entire term of imprisonment was stated by the sentencing judge to have “regard to his rehabilitation, but also having regard to his offending to date at the time of the commission of these offences.”

The Parties’ Submissions

23. The ground upon which the applicant seeks to review the sentences imposed on the respondent are in essence that the sentencing judge erred in imposing a fully suspended sentence in respect of each bill number as it was not proportionate to the serious nature of the offending carried out and failed to adequately provide for general or specific deterrence.

24. The respondent submitted that the sentencing judge correctly imposed a sentence that had regard to the extensive rehabilitation which the respondent had undergone. It was acknowledged that the sentencing judge gave the respondent every chance to rehabilitate, and it was submitted that the respondent had taken this chance and had substantially achieved that aim at the time of sentencing.

Discussion and Determination

25. 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.

26. The offending in this matter was of a serious nature. Two very serious driving offences were committed, a month apart, at a time when the respondent was disqualified from driving. For one of the victims of the offending, the consequences were very significant.

27. The sentencing judge correctly identified the aggravating features of each offence and marked the gravity of the offending by the identification of appropriate headline sentences. Whilst the applicant complained about the identification of a 7 year headline sentence for the offence of dangerous driving causing serious harm in Bill No. 626/23, we are of the opinion that that headline sentence fell within the sentencing judge’s margin of discretion and, of itself, was not unduly lenient.

28. The sentencing judge also correctly identified the mitigating features arising in the case and reduced the headline sentences by a significant amount. It might be considered that the sentencing judge gave an over generous reduction from the headline sentences identified having regard to the mitigating factors, but again the reduction fell within the sentencing judge’s discretion, and of itself was not such as to amount to an unduly lenient sentence.

29. The possibility of making the sentences imposed on each bill number consecutive to each other, was an option available to the sentencing judge, in light of the separation in time between the offences; the fact that the respondent was driving when disqualified on each occasion; and that different victims were involved. However, this was not an issue raised by the applicant in the grounds of application, and in any event was a matter which fell within the discretion of the sentencing judge.

30. That brings us to the central issue in this application, namely whether the suspension of the entire sentence resulted in an unduly lenient sentence being imposed.

31. The focus of the sentencing judge, throughout the adjourned sentencing process, was to allow the respondent the opportunity to engage in rehabilitation. On the first day the matter came before the sentencing judge, she expressed a view that the respondent should be at home with his wife and five children with another child on the way. The sentencing judge adjourned imposing sentence for over a year, from 6 October 2023 to 14 October 2024, to allow the respondent engage in the various residential treatment facilities which were offered to him through the auspices of Coolmine Rehabilitation Centre. Undoubtedly, the respondent, who had significant alcohol addiction and mental health issues, made extremely good progress over a period of time. Positive probation reports and therapeutic reports from Coolmine were before the court, on several occasions, as the sentencing judge monitored his engagement with these services. However, by the time sentence was imposed in October 2024, the respondent’s engagement with the services offered to him was on the wane. A probation report before the Court on 14 October 2024, set out that the respondent had left a community based day programme in April 2024.

Despite efforts on the part of his key worker and probation officers, the respondent refused to re-engage with the programme. He also failed to complete a mental health programme that he had sought access to. Missed appointments with the probation service and other services were also referred to, although various reasons had been provided by the respondent as to why he could not attend appointments. In addition, his clean urine status was no longer evident, with a single use of cocaine noted in August 2024. Whilst the sentencing judge commented that the Probation Report could have been better, she nonetheless suspended the entire of the sentence imposed in respect of both bill numbers.

32. Rehabilitation is, of course, an important aspect in sentencing. The dicta of Edwards J in DPP v. Rigney [2025] IECA 105, regarding rehabilitation, as referred to by Counsel for the respondent, are noted. However, the circumstances of Rigney, where a 2 year suspended sentence was imposed in respect of a single dangerous driving causing serious harm incident, in circumstances where the accused was otherwise of good character and extremely remorseful, are substantially different to the instant matter. This is demonstrated by a summary of the probation report as set out by Edwards J at paragraph 31 of his judgment:-

“31. In conclusion the report noted that the respondent appeared to have good insight into his behaviour and how dangerous it was, for which he had expressed remorse and shame. He had also displayed a good sense of victim awareness and had offered his apologies to all those harmed by his actions. He had presented as a polite quiet young man with general prosocial values and a good work ethic, and had fully cooperated with the probation service for the preparation of the report. He was regarded as being at a low risk of reoffending due to the existence of a number of protective factors, which included his lack of previous offences, his training and employment status, his lack of mental health and addiction issues and his supportive and pro-social support network. Due to his lowrisk status, the Probation Officer requested that the court might dispose of the matter without further recourse to the Probation Service.”

33. We are of the opinion that the rehabilitation evidence in the instant case was not of such an exceptional level as to merit the suspension of the entire term of imprisonment. In taking this course of action, the sentencing judge failed to impose a proportionate sentence with respect of the serious offending committed. As a result, a sentence was imposed which was a substantial departure for the appropriate sentence in this matter and was unduly lenient within the meaning of the 1993 Act.

34. Accordingly, we will quash the sentence imposed on both bill numbers and proceed to re-sentence the respondent, as of today’s date.

Re-Sentence

35. As already indicated, having regard to the serious nature of the offending and the aggravating matters correctly identified by the sentencing judge, we are of the view that the headline sentences identified in respect of all of the offending were appropriate.

36. We also are of the view that having regard to the mitigating factors identified by the sentencing judge, which we are in agreement with, that the level of reduction from the headline sentences provided for by the sentencing judge was also appropriate in light of the level of rehabilitation engaged in by the respondent.

37. Whilst imposing consecutive sentences in respect of the bill numbers is an option open to us, we are not disposed to impose consecutive sentences in light of the level of rehabilitation the respondent has engaged in.

38. Accordingly, on Bill 626/23, we are imposing a term of imprisonment of 4 years and 6 months on Count 1. With respect to Counts 2, 3 and 4, we are imposing a term of imprisonment of 4 years. All remaining counts are taken into consideration. We also are disqualifying the respondent from driving for a period of 15 years to date from the 14 October 2024, the original date of sentencing.

39. With respect to Bill 73/23 we are imposing a term of imprisonment of 3 years’ imprisonment on Count 1, with all other counts taken into consideration. We also are disqualifying the respondent from driving for a period of 15 years to date from 14 October 2024.

40. The sentence in Bill 73/23 is to run concurrently to the sentences imposed on Bill Number 626/23. The sentences are to date from the execution of a bench warrant which was issued in respect of the respondent on today’s date.

Approved No Redaction Needed