DPP appeal over Offaly motorist's suspended sentence is rejected

The Court of Appeal has rejected the State’s claim that a two-year suspended sentence was unduly lenient for a 22-year-old man who caused “devastating and life-changing harm” to a five-year-old girl through dangerous driving when he collided head-on with her father’s vehicle.

“We think there is a distinction to be drawn between aggravating factors based on recklessness and conscious or deliberate choices to engage in conduct impacting the ability to drive safely,” said Mr Justice John Edwards, delivering judgment in the case of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) versus Emmett Rigney (22).

Rigney, of Shinrone, Co. Offaly was convicted of dangerous driving causing serious bodily injury arising out of a road traffic collision between two vehicles at Ballingarry, Co. Tipperary, on August 14, 2021.

When the case was heard at Nenagh Courthouse in April 2024, the driver of the other vehicle told gardaí that he saw “a car driving fast” coming towards him, with three cars in total that “looked like they were racing”.

“He tried to avoid me but it was too late. He was driving too fast and it was a slippery road... he hit me head on,” said the witness, whose two children were in the rear of the vehicle. His five-year-old daughter suffered a very severe traumatic brain injury as a result of the crash.

The girl’s mother, who was six months pregnant at the time of the collision, gave victim impact evidence that this incident had “a destructive impact” on the whole family.

“The wonderful life we had until the day of the accident was taken away from us, and the life (my daughter) could have had was taken away from her,” she said.

The respondent was convicted by Judge Catherine Staines at Nenagh Courthouse on April 26, 2024, with a headline sentence of three and a half years reduced to two years, which was suspended for two years on condition of the payment of €10,000 compensation. He was also disqualified from driving for six years,

The DPP appealed this sentence on the grounds of undue leniency, arguing that it did not contain a sufficient element of punishment and that the assessment of the driving as being at the lower end of the mid-range was wrong in principle.

In delivering the Court of Appeal’s judgement on Thursday of last week, Mr Justice Edwards said the court recognised that “devastating and life-changing harm” was caused to the girl by the respondent’s dangerous driving, as well as “significant collateral consequences” for other members of her family.

He noted that the family had suffered financial consequences and were caused worry, stress and major inconvenience, while the girl experienced a lengthy hospitalisation and subsequent programme of physical and mental rehabilitation.

Mr Justice Edwards said that the DPP had argued that the sentencing judge erred in setting the headline sentence at three and a half years, as the aggravating factors included that the respondent engaged in racing, was attempting to overtake two vehicles at the same time, had crossed a continuous white line, was on the wrong side of the road, had failed to take account of the reduced visibility, and had disregarded a request from one of his passengers to slow down.

“We think there is a distinction to be drawn between aggravating factors based on recklessness and conscious or deliberate choices to engage in conduct impacting the ability to drive safely,” said Mr Justice Edwards.

Ruling that the court did not think the sentencing judge erred in her assessment of the respondent’s culpability, Mr Justice Edwards said that the evidence did not support that Rigney had been racing at the time.

He noted that Rigney had accepted he made “a very grave error of judgement” in attempting to overtake in poor visibility and at speed when approaching a bend, and that this had been dangerous driving.

“We find the approach of the sentencing judge in this case to have been conscientious and careful, and that the reasons she has provided in explanation of her approach were cogent,” said Mr Justice Edwards.

While acknowledging that the sentence imposed was lenient, he said that the court did not consider it to be unduly lenient or outside of the norm.

He noted the respondent’s relative inexperience at driving, his “profound and genuine” remorse, the fact that he was a first-time offender, and the fact that he had been assessed as being at a low risk of reoffending.

Saying that the sentence imposed was designed to “achieve communication of significant censure and to achieve deterrence both specific and general”, Mr Justice Edwards ruled that the court was not persuaded that the sentencing judge got the balance wrong in all the circumstances.

Accordingly, the application by the DPP was dismissed.