Circuit Court imposes suspended prison sentences for multiple burglaries and property damage in Tipperary. Defendants convicted of breaking into homes and causing significant damage.

[2015] IECC 2

The Circuit Court

South Eastern Circuit

Clonmel

County of Tipperary

Record no. TYDP0045/2014

The People at the suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions

Prosecutor

-v-

Dean Byrne, Donal O Hara, John Joyce, Michael McDonagh, Patrick Gately, Patrick Joyce and Thomas Flynn

Defendants

Sentencing judgment of His Honour Judge Thomas Teehan delivered on 1st October 2015

One of the primary rights guaranteed to Irish citizens under our Constitution is the right to private property. A right even more

fundamental than the right to own property is the right to bodily integrity. The rights of the child were resoundingly endorsed in

recent times by the Irish people. Here is a case in which not only were all of these rights violated, they were violated in the same

series of actions, thus compounding the harm visited upon the family who are the victims of this crime, and violated in such flagrant

fashion that if even the most robust among our citizens had had to undergo the ordeal endured by this family, they would have been

significantly traumatised.

Tabloid headlines would have us believe that the country is experiencing a crime wave. The reality does not reflect this. Ireland has a

relatively low crime rate by comparison with other developed nations, and the figures are infinitesimally small when set against those

of some countries in Latin America and southern Africa. In some categories of offences, the rate has actually dropped in recent years.

That is not to say that there is not a significant apprehension on the part of a great number of people in rural Ireland in relation to

their own safety in their own homes. This may well be so in cities also, but as the principal sentencing judge in this county for the

past several years I am in a better position than many others to speak in relation to rural Ireland. Such apprehension is most marked

among the elderly, and among those living in isolated homes.

Many people who have not been direct victims of crime have very little idea of how powerful and how profound are the changes to

their lives experienced by crime victims. As a sentencing judge, I have seen time and time again how the victims of burglary find that

the crime perpetrated on their home or business is a life changing event for them: the sense of security which they had taken for

granted prior to the commission of a crime is utterly swept away; the enjoyment of their own property is something they can no

longer experience; and a deep unease and a sense of gnawing apprehension remain with them for many years after the crime,

whether within the property or away from it. It need hardly be said that if such manifold life changes can be wrought by a simple

burglary, where the victim only discovers the crime after the wrongdoer has fled, it can be no surprise to anyone if the consequences

for the victims are even more devastating when a family is the subject of an aggravated burglary.

Now if the consequences for victims of burglary are potentially devastating, they are no less so for persons who have violence or the

imminent threat of violence visited upon them, even if our legislators – shamefully – have allowed a wholly disproportionate disconnect

to come about between the maximum sentences for burglary and other offences against property, on the one hand, and the most

common type of violent crime to come before the courts on indictment, on the other. Again and again, when Victim Impact Reports

are opened to the court in assault cases, the same type of effects are described: the outgoing person becomes moody and

introverted; fear, and the strong apprehension of undergoing a similarly traumatic experience are never far from the forefront of

consciousness; and the person who had little hesitation in trusting other people becomes suspicious and fearful.

Most of the victims that Circuit Court Judges have to take account of when dealing with sentence in indictable matters are adults.

Many such victims, being adult, have enough experience of life’s setbacks to have developed sufficient life and coping skills to enable

them to confront the consequences of crime in some sort of meaningful way. The same cannot be said of children. Many of our most

damaged citizens are persons who underwent horrific experiences in childhood, at a time when they were singularly ill-equipped –

simply by reason of their tender years – to cope with such traumas. That is why the ill consequences of crime for children are more

deep-seated and more long-lasting than for adults. I am constitutionally obliged to have regard to the voice of the child in any cases

before me in which children are involved; I have heard the voices of the children who are at the centre of this case, and it is fair to

say that neither I nor anybody else who was present for the sentence hearing will readily forget that harrowing sound. Detective Sgt

White, in his evidence, described the terrified screams of the children as they saw the violence visited upon their parents, heard the

threats that they – the children – would be killed, heard the threats that their father would have his feet chopped off and that he

would have a screwdriver driven through his nose, and saw the guns and saw the machete wielded by this menacing group of men

wearing balaclavas after they had been woken from their sleep by frightful sounds and shouting. At an earlier bail hearing in respect of

one of the men, Sgt White described how the sounds of the raid came to be recorded. He stated that he – and I am aware that he is

a very experienced Garda and part of the detective branch of the force for many years – found it difficult to listen to the screams of

the children.

The direct victims of this crime were the five members of the Corcoran family. They were not the only victims, although what others

had to undergo does not begin to compare in terms of gravity with the ordeal and the consequences of the ordeal endured by Mark

and Emma Corcoran and their three children. The elderly lady whose car was stolen; those who witnessed the absolutely frightening

car chase at speeds of about 200 km/h that took place in the early hours of 21 November through the village of Ballybrittas and

elsewhere in Co Laois; the motorists in rush-hour traffic between Naas and Dublin later that morning, some of whose cars were

damaged by the utterly reckless driving of the stolen jeep and many more of whom must have been greatly frightened by such driving.

In addition to that, a great many more people, especially the neighbours of the Corcorans but also many more throughout rural Ireland

would have slept a lot less easily in their beds after details of what had occurred were very widely reported through various news

media.

This is a case with multiple aggravating factors. The most significant factor of all is the effect that this crime has had on the

members of the Corcoran family. The five of them were woken from sleep in the family home in the most violent manner by what must

have seemed like an army of sinister looking intruders. In his Victim Impact Statement, Mark Corcoran stated that his children saw and

heard things that night that no child should ever go through; indeed, no human being of any age should ever have to witness such an

egregiously violent scene, and most especially in their own home. The feeling of utter helplessness which Mr Corcoran felt as he saw

his wife and children suffer can probably only be fully appreciated by somebody who has been through a similar ordeal. He even goes

on to refer to “an enormous sense of guilt” he feels to this day in this regard. Let me say at this stage, and for what it is worth, that

no such feeling of guilt is at all warranted (of course, I appreciate that while thoughts can be marshalled, it is far less easy to control

feelings; the heart and the head operate on very different levels).

For Emma Corcoran, the house which she called home from the age of four has always had a special place in her heart. For her, and

for her husband and children, it was no doubt a place of peace and a place of sanctuary. This is what every person is entitled to in

their own dwelling, no matter what is happening to them in the outside world. That sense of security has been shattered by the

events of 21 November 2013. For Mrs Corcoran and for the rest of the family, they would never feel in quite the same way about the

family home. She has to see a psychotherapist weekly. Sleep, both for her and the rest of the family, is now more difficult and is

often punctuated by nightmares. She has lost jewellery which for her had enormous sentimental value.

All three children have been emotionally scarred by this ordeal. The effects on little Abbie, the youngest, are particularly harrowing,

even though she did not witness directly – as did her sisters Leah and Lauren – the full horror of what happened to their parents.

Mark Corcoran has suffered significant physical injuries as a result of being assaulted by one of the men. I have already indicated that

the medical reports do not confirm that there was a fracture to the eye socket. However, what is abundantly clear from the

photograph which I have been shown is that Mr Corcoran did suffer a significant injury to the eye. Of even more consequence was

the nasal injury which required no less than four surgical interventions; these have brought an improvement, but not a full recovery.

Detective Sgt White, in his evidence, noted a small improvement in recent times in relation to the psychological effects on the family.

That is welcome and heartening, but it is clear that these five people are a long way from full recovery in relation to the psychological

sequelae of this crime.

Of less consequence, but nonetheless still of huge importance, the family has suffered financially to a very significant extent. Many

incidental expenses were not covered by insurance, medical and travelling expenses are very sizeable and continuing, and the couple

has spent a very large sum indeed on the security of their home. Not a penny of this expense has been provided by the defendants,

even though they were the direct cause of it (I have not heard specific evidence to this effect, but without any doubt, had some

financial compensation been paid, I would have been apprised of this by cross-examination of the prosecution witness or by counsel).

In many years of sentencing, I have rarely come across losses on such a scale as a result of crime. However, these pale almost to

insignificance beside the continuing losses to the family as a result of closing down the successful family business, which again was a

direct result of this criminal enterprise.

Taking all of these effects together, it is clear that the Corcoran family, and each individual member, have suffered catastrophic

changes to their lives.

While the effect on the victims is the most significant aggravating factor, it is very far from being the only one. The next in order of

importance, it seems to me, is the highly planned nature of the crime: more than seven people were involved (I accept that, by

reason of drug debt, at least one of the participants was approached by persons not before the court and informed that they had to

take part in the raid); a car was bought in circumstances of some dishonesty in furtherance of the plan; walkie-talkies were

purchased; and the gang arrived with weapons, balaclavas and cable ties.

Other significantly aggravating factors, in no particular order of importance, are: the nature of the weapons used – sawn off shotguns

and handguns have particularly sinister connotations in circumstances such as these, while the machete which I was shown at the

sentencing hearing on Tuesday could well have been almost more frightening for the victims than the guns; this rural dwelling, in a

quiet country cul-de-sac outside Killenaule, being the home of a business family, was very obviously targeted as part of the overall

plan (the intelligence on which the decision was made to so target this house was obviously flawed, since large amounts of cash were

not kept there, but that factor does not help the Accused in any way); the level of gratuitous violence visited on the two adults –

neither of whom was in any way a physical threat to the raiders – was quite terrifying; in the light of this, the unfortunate occupants

had every reason to take very seriously indeed the horrific threats which were shouted; the attack occurred while the victims were

asleep in the middle of the night; the sheer number present was itself designed to intimidate; very young children were present

throughout; the attempts by Mr Gately and Mr Byrne to evade capture on two different occasions, which I have already adverted to,

posed an enormous threat to life and limb for a great number of people; in Mr Gately’s case, the giving of a false name; for most of

the men, a significant risk of reoffending; and, in every case save that of Mr McDonagh, the fact that there were a significant number

of previous convictions.

Taking all of these factors into account, it is abundantly clear to me as to where this case comes in the scale of gravity. It is not by

any means in the lower range; it is not in the middle range; it falls in the higher range and, indeed, towards the very top of that

range. This is an offence for which the legislature has provided a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. There are some cases –

albeit very rare – where it is appropriate to impose the maximum sentence, even on a plea of guilty. Such is the gravity of this

offence that I felt it appropriate to consider taking such a course, at least in respect of some of the men. Having so reflected, I do

not think that is the correct course here: a determinate sentence in each case is appropriate. It is important to state, however, that

the crime of aggravated burglary is even more serious than a number of other crimes with maximum sentences of life imprisonment, so

that a crime which comes towards the very top of the scale under that heading has to warrant significantly heavy sentences.

I come now to the deal with each of the men individually: in the case of Dean Byrne, this is a young man with no fewer than 120

previous convictions, many of them for quite serious offences. Despite his relative youth, he has shown an utter disregard for the law,

is deemed to be at a high risk of reoffending, and has, so far at least, shown no willingness to get involved in education or training.

Despite asserting in a letter to the court that he has been drug-free since going into custody, the recently prepared Probation and

Welfare Report indicates that he has never had a drug-free period in his life, and states that he has an ambivalent attitude to leading

a drug-free lifestyle. To his credit, he has pleaded guilty, and that is an extremely important factor in mitigation. He and all of his co-

accused should be in no doubt that, if they had been convicted by a jury of this offence, the sentence of the court would be

considerably greater. The benefits go well beyond what is normally urged on the court on these occasions – the saving in time and

expense, and the fact that the victims do not have to relive the horrors of their ordeal in a public arena; of at least as much

importance is that the victim hears from the perpetrator’s own lips an acknowledgement of wrongdoing and even where – as here – an

apology to the victims is not accepted as genuine, the very fact of a guilty plea in a great many cases is a considerable boost to the

healing process for the victim (and not every victim gets this – in some instances, even after a conviction by a judge or jury, the

perpetrator refuses to acknowledge guilt, and thus exacerbates the adverse effects on the victim). Mr Byrne is, unfortunately, not

literate, and this undoubtedly presents difficulties with regard to rehabilitation. He undoubtedly had very difficult childhood

experiences, and the fact that he was diagnosed with ADHD caused him difficulty in childhood and adolescence. There are some

indications of remorse and insight into the difficulties of his victims, not least from the letter which he has written to the court. He

says he will seek further help through his problems, and expresses the wish to one day become a productive member of society.

With regard to Michael McDonagh, his involvement was on a different level. Like others, he had voluntarily become involved in drug

culture, albeit at a very young age. He has entered an early plea. He has offered an apology to the victims, and I accept that he is

genuinely remorseful, and also insightful with regard to the suffering of his victims. Importantly, he has no previous convictions, even

though he began to lead a very chaotic lifestyle in adolescence. Knowing that he was facing a custodial sentence, at his own

instance he sought and obtained expert help in advance of starting his sentence; in 44 years of involvement with the criminal law,

this is the very first time I have encountered such a refreshing approach, and generally he has been anxious to rehabilitate. He is a

married man with two children, and has support from his parents. The testimonials I have been shown speak well of him. Of at least

equal importance with the plea of guilty and the lack of previous convictions is the fact that, due to his drug debt, he encountered a

level of duress from somebody who is not one of his co-accused.

Dean O’Hara is a young man with 19 previous convictions. Although one of these was for burglary, that was an offence which the

court dealt with by way of an order for community service. 17 of the others are for road traffic offences. This undoubtedly indicates a

considerable disregard for the law, but his previous convictions do not begin to compare in terms of gravity with those of some of his

confederates. He entered a guilty plea at an early stage. He gave some assistance to the Gardai when questioned, saying that he

remained outside the house. On balance, I would give him the benefit of the doubt in this regard; of course, he was part of a joint

enterprise, and had to realise that he was taking part in a very serious crime, and so this does not avail him a great deal. He no

longer associates with his co-accused and, I am satisfied, he bitterly regrets becoming involved in this incident. His family has

undoubtedly suffered as a result of the stance he has taken since the commission of the offence, and this confirms my view that

there were very sinister persons indeed behind the planning of this operation. He is the father of three children, and is somebody who

has exhibited psychiatric symptoms. I accept his apology as being genuine and heartfelt. He has engaged in a rehabilitative

programme, and I accept that he has a genuine determination to change his life as a result of the traumas he has undergone since

getting involved in this very serious enterprise.

Thomas Flynn has 20 previous convictions. Like others, he had taken substances on the night of the crime, as well as alcohol. He is

currently serving a 3 ½ year sentence imposed on 29 January 2015. Some of the convictions were for relatively serious offences,

although it is fair to say that none compares with the seriousness of the instant case. He entered an early plea of guilty. He is

somebody with addiction problems, and appears to have run up (like so many people who come before the courts on serious charges)

a drug debt. Although he was only 19 when he committed the offence, he cannot get anything like the level of benefit because of his

youth that might be given to a first offender of the same age; nonetheless, I do take some account of his relatively few years, as I

do with all of the others save Mr Gately. He had a traumatic childhood, and this undoubtedly impacted in a negative way on him. He

has been diagnosed with dyslexia and assessed as being of low intelligence. He has experienced mental health difficulties. Since

entering prison, he has taken some steps towards addressing his difficulties. His father was present to give him support for the

hearing. He has apologised to his victims and, in his now drug-free state, I accept that the apology is genuine. Like some of the

others, getting involved in a situation like this appears to have had a cathartic effect on his life.

Patrick Joyce has 16 previous convictions. None were for outright violence, although two were public order offences and one was for

criminal damage. He entered an early plea of guilty. He is somebody who has had addiction issues, as well as mental health issues.

Although he made no admissions in interview, he was otherwise co-operative with the Gardai when apprehended and in the Garda

Station. He did not enjoy the best start in life, and his low IQ has been a further hindrance to development. In more recent times, he

is on much better terms with his father, who was not present as a positive force during his childhood and adolescence. He is now

married and with a young daughter; his wife is very supportive, and has written an impressive letter to the court. He has taken

important steps towards rehabilitation, and impressed a number of people with his willingness to turn his life around. As a teenager, he

channelled his energies into boxing. It was unfortunate that a hand injury took him away from that pursuit because it was from that

time on that he started to offend. During his time on bail, he has returned to some involvement in sport, and generally seems to have

used this time productively.

Patrick Gately is a few years older than his confederates. He has amassed 85 criminal convictions in his 28 years. By any standard,

this is a very unimpressive record. I would have to say that Mr Gateley’s reliability as a historian has to be subject to some

considerable doubt: he told his forensic psychologist that the entire incident lasted one minute, when we know that the actual time

was approximately 12 minutes; in describing the aftermath of the offence, he made no mention of the two car chases, simply saying

that he and his friend stopped on the way to Dublin and fell asleep in the vehicle for a couple of hours. It is also of note that he gave

a false name to Gardai, having engaged in highly dangerous speeds and manoeuvres to evade Garda capture. Like so many of the

others, his childhood and adolescence were chaotic by reason of alcohol in the home. The death of his parents four years ago was an

obviously traumatic life event. He entered a plea of guilty and, as I have indicated, I accept that this was in effect at a relatively

early stage. Sadly, he was of no regular fixed abode at the time of this offence. He has taken some steps toward rehabilitation. The

assessment of cognitive functioning in his psychological report makes for a sad reading: Patrick Gately is in the lowest one percentile

of the population in this regard. He is clearly in need of considerable rehabilitative help while in prison. It is noteworthy that he is in a

relationship with a lady who is a committed Christian, and it is very much to be hoped that her influence is or will become a very

important guiding light in his life.

I turn now to John Joyce. He has accumulated the large number of 55 convictions prior to this; it is fair to say that none begins to

compare in terms of seriousness with the instant case – granted, he has two convictions under section 15 of the Misuse of Drugs Act

1977, but I am informed that the only prison sentence he has served was for one of his convictions under section 53 of the Road

Traffic Act 1961, and so, presumably, the courts took a relatively lenient view of those offences. Having said that, 55 criminal

convictions at the age of 21 reflects badly on John Joyce. His was an early plea of guilty. He is somebody who is doubly handicapped:

he has an extremely low IQ, and the problems which this has caused him with regard to his education have been compounded by a

hearing difficulty. Having said that, he appears to have been very lucky in his wife Nicole, who has written a very moving letter to the

court. She strongly disapproves of drugs, and delivered an ultimatum to her husband. From that time, there was a change. Moreover,

his father who had failed to provide a positive role model for his son John belatedly began to turn his own life around and to provide

some support. I have been impressed by letters from friends and extended family, and I have been left in no doubt that John Joyce

very much regrets his part in this very serious crime.

In arriving at sentences that are proportionate, I have to have due regard to a number of considerations. One of those is punishment:

when persons engage in activity of this sort, it is important for right-minded citizens to see that the courts look with considerable

asperity at such egregiously evil behaviour. Where there is genuine contrition, remorse, and a turning away from such behaviour

towards creating a productive life based on a genuine insight into the harm done to victims, these matters should also be reflected in

the sentence passed. There is a third factor in the construction of sentence which has perhaps not always been given the

consideration which it might properly have, and I say this from consideration of a large number of cases of aggravated burglary dealt

with in the Circuit Court, the Court of Criminal Appeal, and the Court of Appeal: it is the concept of deterrence. I have already

adverted to the large number of victims in this case, even apart from the members of the Corcoran family. To these might be added

the families and extended families of some if not all of the perpetrators. Again, I stress that the suffering of the immediate victims is

on an entirely different level to that of other victims. But when evil deeds are committed, the evil consequences reach out in multiple

directions. This crime, which shocked an entire nation, was in a sense a huge affront to the great majority of citizens and other

residents in Ireland who are law-abiding. Other persons who might be contemplating similar crimes in the future should know that

there can be a very heavy price to pay for such crimes. Each of these men, indeed, had to know that when they entered upon this

escapade, while they stood to gain – as they saw it – a substantial financial dividend, they had to recognise that if that did not come

about, and the forces of law and order apprehended them, the result would inevitably be a very lengthy prison sentence. This is a

message which must go out in the clearest and most unequivocal terms.

Among the considerable number of sentencing decisions which I have considered are the following: in The People v Roe, which came

before the late Judge Haugh on 9 July 1997, two men forced their way into the adult victim’s dwelling, using a knife. The victim was

tied up, and some items were stolen. The victim’s PIN number was demanded at knifepoint. The victim, who freed himself after the

intruders left, jumped at an upstairs window, breaking his leg. One of the intruders pleaded guilty to aggravated burglary, and Judge

Haugh (who certainly had no reputation for passing excessively long sentences) imposed a sentence of 11 years. In The People v

Fitzpatrick (Cork Circuit Criminal Court 14th of November 2014) an attempted aggravated burglary at the home of a businessman was

thwarted when Gardai obtained information. The accused was one of three men who approached the house under cover of darkness.

They were apprehended, and the sentence imposed by Judge Riordan was one of 14 years imprisonment, after a jury verdict of guilty.

The two accomplices pleaded guilty before Judge O’Donnobhain on 24 February 2014; a sentence of 15 years with three suspended

was passed in relation to one, while the sentence for the third accused was 10 years with three years suspended. It need hardly be

said that the ordeal of that family, who had been moved before the attempted crime took place, could not begin to compare with that

endured by the Corcorans. In The People v Delaney (11th of March 2011) Judge Hunt (as he then was) imposed a sentence of 18

years, with six years suspended, on one of four intruders who burst in on a married couple, demanding money. They continuously hit

the husband, while threatening to burn the wife’s hair. It would seem that no appeal was brought in any of these cases. In all of my

research, I did not find any case with anything approaching the aggregate of aggravating factors that are present in this case.

I have been asked by Mr Condon to consider employing a restorative justice approach in relation to his client. In view of the extreme

seriousness of the criminal activity here, and also in view of the evidence that Mr Corcoran and his family have rejected out of hand

the apologies proffered (and I note that each defendant did so apologise), I can not accede to that request. Having said that,

however, and being aware – as I am – how beneficial such an approach can be, I would make a request to Mr and Mrs Corcoran. I

stress that this is no more than a request, and is most certainly not part of any order of the court. It is this: if, through the efforts of

one or more of the defence solicitors, a meeting or meetings could be arranged by the Probation Service between one or both of them

and any individual defendants, I would certainly encourage this. Such meetings, coming after sentence has been passed, may not

even be of interest to the defendants, and it would be even less surprising if the victims were not interested. There may be any

number of practical considerations why such meetings are not possible. However, I am aware that such personal interaction, which

can be beneficial to the wrongdoer, can be even more positively beneficial to the victim. One important outcome of such face-to-face

interaction (in the presence, of course, of a trained professional from the Probation Service) could be an appreciation on the part of

Mr and Mrs Corcoran that the attack on them in their home had no element of personal animus on the part of the attackers (which is

a feeling that many victims are left with after such crimes) and, even more important, an acceptance that the family has nothing to

fear from any of the accused in future. I had hoped, incidentally, that this assurance would have been given to the family in the

course of a sentence hearing by counsel for the men; while it was probably implicit in Mr Condon’s application, it was not spelt out in

those terms, and I have no doubt that such assurances would bring at least some measure of comfort to the victim family.

One further thing I wish to say before passing the individual sentences is this: I am mindful of the fact that, having regard to the

remission regimes for prisoners, the length of sentences to be served is likely to be somewhat less than the period of years stipulated

by me.

In the case of Dean Byrne, I am imposing a sentence of 20 years, with four years suspended for a period of 10 years from his release,

and dating from 21 November 2013.

In the case of Michael McDonagh, the sentence of the court is 12 years, with seven years suspended for a period of 10 years from

29.9.15.

In respect of Donal O’Hara, the sentence would be 12 years with seven years suspended for a period of 10 years from 29.9.15.

In the case of Thomas Flynn, taking account of the principle of totality in sentencing, the period will be 12 years, with three years

suspended for a period of 10 years, to commence on the expiration of his current sentence.

For Patrick Joyce, the sentence will be 14 years imprisonment, with four years suspended for 10 years, from 29.9.15.

In respect of Patrick Gately, I am imposing a sentence of 20 years imprisonment, with four years suspended for 10 years, from 21

November 2013.

In the case of John Joyce, the appropriate sentence is 15 years imprisonment, with four suspended for 10 years, from 1 April 2014.

The terms upon which each sentence is suspended are as follows: to keep the peace and be of good behaviour; to remain completely

free of alcohol and illicit drugs; to engage with the Probation Service for two years after release from prison, and to comply with all

requirements of that service; and not to enter the County of Tipperary without the consent of the Chief Superintendent for that

Garda division.