Court finds it unjust to jail man who received unduly lenient sentence

The Court of Criminal Appeal has found that it would be unjust to jail a man who avoided a custodial sentence and was instead fined €1,500 in 2011 for dangerous driving causing the death of a 21-year-old woman, despite finding the sentence too lenient.

The appeal court last week imposed a four-year suspended sentence on the man, following an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions against the "undue leniency" of the original sentence.

Robert Eustace (36) had a history of blackouts and was under medical advice not to drive a heavy goods vehicle when the lorry he was driving veered on to the incorrect side of the road and crushed the car driven by Aoife Kelly (21).

In June 2011 Eustace avoided a jail sentence after he was fined €1,500 and disqualified from driving for eight years by Judge Alice Doyle at Wexford Circuit Criminal Court. Eustace, with a last address at Bachelor's Wall, Hayestown, had pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing the death of Ms Kelly at Adamstown, Dublin on September 18th, 2009.

Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman, presiding at the Court of Criminal Appeal, said the court found this sentence was unduly lenient, particularly having regard to the medical evidence in the case.

Counsel for the DPP, Philip Sheahan, had submitted that the fact Eustace had a prior medical condition where he was involved in a previous accident and had been advised not to drive commercial lorries was an aggravating factor which Judge Doyle failed to take into account.

However, Mr Justice Hardiman said the exercise was not to impose the sentence that should have been imposed in June 2011, but rather the sentence that is appropriate today.

Mr Justice Hardiman said there has been an “unfortunate habit” of conferring an additional jurisdiction on the appeal court without conferring additional resources, as the court had to deal with the “entirely new jurisdiction” of prosecution appeals against undue leniency of sentence with no actual increase in resources.

He said the court noted that it had been two-and-a-half years since the case had been dealt with in the Circuit Court, and it happened increasingly that appeals were heard after the expiration of the sentences imposed.

Mr Justice Hardiman said these factors were bringing the administration of justice into disrepute, but there was nothing whatever the appeal court could do about it.

He said that although the case was a “huge tragedy” which had a “drastic effect” on everybody connected with the matter, the court could not see that it would be just, after two-and-a-half years, to substitute a non-custodial sentence with a custodial one.

On the other hand, Mr Justice Hardiman said, the medical evidence was a major aggravating factor and there was evidence of sufficient warning and advice to Eustace to abstain from driving heavy vehicles.

He said the court would impose a sentence of four years imprisonment suspended for the period of the eight year driving disqualification. After imposing sentence, Mr Justice Hardiman told Eustace: “If you drive a vehicle of any kind within the disqualification period you will certainly go to jail.”

The court heard that the lorry driven by Eustace veered to its incorrect side of the road, mounted the victim’s car and almost drove over it. Ms Kelly, the driver of the car, was pronounced dead at the scene.

Eustace consented to the disclosure of his medical records, which revealed that, after he was involved in a single-vehicle accident with a previous employer, a doctor had advised Eustace not to drive HGVs.

There was no evidence as to how the collision occurred, and there was also no evidence that Eustace suffered a blackout or similar seizure at the time.