Strong w arning delivered to burglars as appealcourt imposes heavier sentences
EARLIER this year there were encouraging signs that An Garda Síochána has gotten to grips with the burglary gangs terrorising many parts of the country.
Despite a number of disturbing cases in rural areas where elderly people were assaulted, statistics revealed burglary rates throughout 2017 were close to the lowest levels on record.
While it is easy to be sceptical of Garda statistics, there is no doubt inroads have been made.
Burglary, particularly when it is aggravated by violence, is a traumatic crime for victims. After all, if someone cannot feel safe in their home, where can they feel safe? It is also a crime with an extraordinarily high level of re-offending.
Central Statistics Office figures show 70pc of burglars released from jail in 2009 committed another offence within three years.
But Operation Thor, which has been ongoing since 2015, has put many prolific burglars behind bars.
It placed a particular focus on criminal gangs who would descend on a community, commit a series of break-ins and then flee at high speed, using the country’s motorway network to evade capture.
Legislatively, the Government responded with the Criminal Justice (Burglary of Dwellings) Act 2015. This law made it more difficult for repeat offenders to get bail. It also placed a requirement on a court to impose consecutive sentences when dealing with multiple burglary offences.
This week a third prong to the State’s response emerged.
Inconsistent sentencing of burglars has long been an issue of concern for victims.
A lack of sentencing guidelines has greatly contributed to his problem.
Where an offender appears in court can often determine the length of their sentence as some judges are harder on burglary than others.
The country’s most senior judge Chief Justice Frank Clarke has spoken of his desire for Ireland to have a well-resourced sentencing guideline body, similar to the Sentencing Council for England and Wales.
But in the absence of such a body, earlier this year the Director of Public Prosecutions took the unusual step of asking the Court of Appeal to set guidelines and sentencing parameters for burglary.
That court sent a strong message this week when it not only produced clear parameters, but also significantly increased the sentences of four notorious burglars, including two involved in a “fatal burglary” where a 62-year-old man with heart issues collapsed and died.
The incoming President of the Court of Appeal, Mr Justice George Birmingham, in a judgment with Mr Justice Alan Mahon and Mr Justice John Edwards, set suggested sentencing levels for mid-ranging and the most serious burglaries.
The court set the pre-mitigation sentencing level for mid-range offences at between four and nine years. According to counsel for the DPP, the factors involved in a mid-range burglary offence are planning and premeditation, two or more participants acting together, and the targeting of residential properties, particularly in rural areas. Other factors in this category include the targeting of a property because the occupant is known to be vulnerable due to age or disability, and the taking of property with a high monetary or sentimental value.
The court set the range for the most serious type of burglaries at between nine and 14 years, before mitigating factors are taken into account.
The factors putting a burglary at the most serious level include the ransacking of a dwelling, entering a dwelling known to be occupied at night especially if the occupant is alone, the use or threat of violence, and the cause of significant injury, whether physical or psychological.
The case in which the guidelines ruling was made was a deeply upsetting one, as a man collapsed and died as he was about to confront intruders.
Although there is no suggestion the two offenders intended to kill or cause serious injury, both had long rap sheets.
One had 44 previous convictions and the other 14 and was out on bail at the time. Neither had a history of gainful employment and both were described in probation reports as being at high risk of re-offending.
They were both originally sentenced to four-and-a-half years in jail with the final year suspended.
Following an application from the DPP, the Court of Appeal found this was unduly lenient and re-sentenced them to seven years with the final eight months suspended.