Consecutive sentences for aggravated burglary and drugs possession are upheld on appeal

Donnelly J: Criminal Law – appeal against severity of sentence – guilty plea – s.15A MDA 1977 – appellant on bail for that offence when he committed the offence of aggravated burglary – sentenced to four years’ imprisonment for s.15A offence – sentenced to four and a half years’ imprisonment with final 12 months suspended – consecutive sentences imposed – other counts on the indictment were taken into consideration – cannabis and cocaine to the value of €35,863 were recovered in the appellant’s bedroom by the Gardaí – appellant admitted knowing drugs were there but did not know how much – appellant said that he was given the drugs to store and was too scared to name the people involved – appellant was on bail when he committed the second offence at a home occupied by a family – victim described two men coming into the room wearing balaclavas/masks and gloves and looking for a safe – whether the sentencing judge failed to adequately apply the principal of totality in circumstances where the sentences were to have consecutive effect – whether the sentencing judge erred in placing the s.15A offence into the upper end of the mid-scale and failed to identify a headline sentence – whether sentencing judge did not have consideration for the appellant’s efforts to rehabilitate and failed to consider imposing a non-custodial element and/or community sanction – whether the sentencing judge imposed a sentenced, in respect of the aggravated burglary, which was excessive in all the circumstances – sentencing judge referred specifically to the principles of totality and proportionality in the course of sentencing – sentencing judge was at all times clear in her sentencing remarks that she was focused on a s.15A offence, in which she was taking into account the totality of the drugs that were found – sentencing judge approached the sentencing of the s.15A offence in a careful and methodical fashion and there is no error in principle in the manner she approached the sentence nor in the sentence actually imposed – low range of sentencing in relation to burglary is one to five years, medium range, six to 10 years and upper range, ten to 15 years with particularly egregious offences capable of attracting higher sentences – sentencing judge nominated a headline sentence of 7 years, which was in fact a sentence below the very middle of the mid-range and there is no error in principle on that identification – sentencing judge did not specifically advert to the fact that she was imposing a larger sentence for the offence of aggravated burglary because it was committed on bail – fact that an offence was committed on bail aggravates the culpability of the particular offender who has carried out that offence – appeal dismissed.