Partly suspended sentence imposed for burglary was not unduly lenient

Criminal law – sentencing – undue leniency – whether a sentence of three years with the final two suspended was unduly lenient – burglary contrary to s.12 (1)(b) and (3) of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001 – s. 29(1)(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 1999 – quantum of discount afforded for mitigation – s. 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 – whether the sentence imposed involved “a clear divergence by the court at trial from the norm” – whether an effective 66% discount on the headline sentence was excessive – judge in this case had abundant evidence to justify her decision to afford a high priority to the penal objective of rehabilitation – suspension of the final two years of the three year headline sentence was not so far outside the norm as to be regarded as unduly lenient – appeal dismissed.