Appeal by Gillane against severity of his sentence lost

The Court of Criminal Appeal has upheld an eight-year sentence imposed on Patrick Gillane for soliciting two men to murder his…

The Court of Criminal Appeal has upheld an eight-year sentence imposed on Patrick Gillane for soliciting two men to murder his wife, Philomena.

Gillane (36), of Glenbrack, near Gort, Co Galway, last week lost his appeal against conviction, and yesterday the three-judge Court of Criminal Appeal rejected his appeal against the severity of his eight-year sentence.

In December 1997 he was found guilty of soliciting Christopher Bolger and Michael Doyle in Dublin on a date between January 1st, 1994, and January 31st, 1994, to murder his wife.

The body of Mrs Gillane was found in the boot of her car at Athlone railway station on May 18th, 1994. She was seven months pregnant and had been shot and stabbed. No one has ever been charged with her murder.

READ MORE

In court yesterday Mr Justice Lynch said the court could see no basis to interfere with the sentence imposed and dismissed the appeal. Mr Justice Lynch, who sat with Mr Justice O'Higgins and Mr Justice Quirke, added that in the case Gillane, as was his right, had fought the matter "tooth and nail".

That was Gillane's perfect right and it did not add a day to the appropriate sentence, but it did mean he was not entitled to the "discount" in cases where there was a plea of guilty.

A further factor was that there was no sign of any remorse by Gillane or any offer of co-operation by him with the Garda authorities. That was also his right, but it meant none of the normal discounting factors arose in the circumstances of the case in his favour.

The only mitigating circumstances were the previous character of Gillane, the judge said. He was certainly a man of good character without any previous convictions. The court had read testimonials on his behalf, but taking all matters into consideration, it appeared the trial judge had approached the matter in proper fashion.

Mr Eamon Leahy SC, for Gillane, said the maximum sentence in this jurisdiction in respect of the offence for which his client had been convicted was 10 years. This meant the eight years to which he was sentenced represented 80 per cent of the maximum, although Gillane had no criminal convictions.

Mr Leahy said there were testimonials from two previous employers, a local clergyman and a doctor who had known Gillane throughout his life. It was submitted that in the circumstances of the case, having regard to the solicitation alleged and proven against Gillane, an eight-year sentence was excessive.

Mr Shane Murphy, for the DPP, submitted there was no error of principle in the way in which the trial judge had approached the case. That Gillane was of previous good character had contributed to the mitigation of the sentence from 10 to eight years. It was clear the trial judge had carefully approached the facts of the case to consider the gravity of the offence.