Sentences for arsonists who doused car in fuel and rammed it into building too low, State argues
'It's difficult to conceive of a more serious arson offence,' said Niall Storan BL, for the DPP, as he sought a review of the sentences imposed on Keith McCormack Smith (24), Jason Ryle (25) and PJ Lyons (21) at the Court of Appeal on Monday.
Advertisement
The barrister described the incident as 'the apex of a spree of serious offending which occurred over several days'. All of the respondents were on bail at the time, he said.
The court viewed video footage of the incident, in which a Toyota car can be seen reversing several times at speed into the building, which quickly becomes engulfed in flames.
The court heard more than a quarter of a million euros worth of damage was caused to the premises.
McCormack Smith – also known as Keith McCormick and Keith McCormick-Smith - of Riverview, Church Road, Mulhuddart, Dublin 15 pleaded guilty to arson at Tip Top Tanning Studio, Tullow Street, Carlow on May 17th, 2022, and arson to a Toyota car on the same date and at the same location.
Advertisement
He also pleaded guilty to various other charges including unlawful use of a motor vehicle, unlawful carriage in a motor vehicle and theft between May 1st and May 17th, 2022.
Judge Eugene O'Kelly sentenced McCormack Smith to six years with the final two years suspended at Carlow Circuit Court on July 31st, 2024.
Jason Ryle of Raithin, Mullingar, Westmeath and PJ Lyons of Cedarbrook Walk, Ballyfermot, Dublin 10, also pleaded guilty to arson arising out of the same incident.
Ryle and Lyons further pleaded guilty to a number of other charges including unlawful use of a motor vehicle, attempted theft and theft on various dates in May 2022.
Advertisement
Ryle was sentenced to five and a half years imprisonment with the final two years suspended while Lyons was also handed a sentence of five and a half years with the final two years suspended for a period of two years and three months.
At the time of sentencing, McCormack Smith had 24 previous convictions including offences under the Road Traffic Act, burglary, theft and criminal damage.
In February 2024, McCormack Smith was sentenced to three years and two months with the final 12 months suspended for his role in a series of offences on January 23rd, 2022, during which a man died. The sentence was increased to five years on appeal.
Ryle had 29 previous convictions for offences including robbery and misuse of drugs while Lyons had 17 for offences including endangerment and obstruction.
Advertisement
The incident in Carlow occurred shortly before 5am on May 17th, 2022, when a stolen Toyota Avensis was rammed into a building on Tullow Street in Carlow and set alight causing the building to catch fire.
Mr Storan said the ground floor of the building operated as a tanning salon during the day and the upper levels were residential apartments. He said McCormack Smith was driving the Toyota car while PJ Lyons recorded what was happening on his phone and Ryle was also present.
Ryle had a bottle containing accelerant in his hand which he then poured onto the car while McCormack Smith got out and the three fled the scene.
A garda investigation revealed that multiple vehicles had been stolen in different locations and were involved in the commission of various offences which ultimately led to the arson at the tanning salon.
Advertisement
The offenders were ultimately identified through social media content from a TikTok account.
Appealing the leniency of the sentences imposed on the three men, Mr Storan said it was 'difficult to conceive of a more serious arson offence' than this one which was both 'targeted' and 'pre-meditated' to cause 'an enormous fire'.
He argued the headline sentence of eight years was too low and the sentences imposed did not adequately reflect the gravity of the offence. The lawyer suggested the judge had misplaced the offending at the mid-range on the scale of gravity.
Mr Storan also said insufficient weight was given to the many aggravating factors including the fact that the apartments over the premises were occupied by families who were sleeping at the time, the pre-meditation involved, the use of an accelerant and the fact that the respondents were on bail.
He said there was little mitigation available bar the defendants' pleas of guilty.
Kathleen Leader SC, for McCormack Smith, argued the sentencing judge had exercised his discretion correctly when imposing sentence and said the headline sentence was calculated having regard to the aggravating factor of the offences being committed at different times.
She said the prosecuting garda had agreed during cross examination that men were acting on the word of someone else to 'clear a drug debt' by carrying out this crime.
Ms Leader said there was no evidence they were motivated by personal revenge or anything of that nature. She suggested this took them 'out of the very high range and put them in the mid-range' of five to ten years.
Dara Foynes SC, for Ryle, said her client had made full admissions when interviewed by gardaí. She said she would associate herself with Ms Leader's comments in relation to the judge assessing the case as being in the upper end of the mid-range for arson.
'We feel that was an appropriate ranking of the sentence,' she said. 'They were young men their lives have been blighted by drugs and drugs were behind this. They were told by a person higher up the chain that they had to do this.'
Damien Colgan SC, representing Lyons, also argued there had been no error and the sentence imposed was correct. He said his client had entered an early plea of guilty and had identified himself from the CCTV footage and had also identified himself from footage in the car posted on TikTok.
Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy said the court would reserve judgement and deliver its decision at a later date.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
a day ago
- Daily Mirror
Conor McGregor faces wait over appeal against sexual assault verdict
Conor McGregor withdrew evidence in his appeal against a civil ruling that he sexually assaulted Nikita Hand after a night out in December 2018 An Irish court has said it will refer claims by witnesses Conor McGregor pulled from his appeal to the director of public prosecutions (DPP), after concerns about perjury arose. It came after a request by the lawyer of Nikita Hand, 35, who successfully sued McGregor in a civil court over an incident in which he was alleged to have 'brutally raped and battered' her in a penthouse at a south Dublin hotel in December 2018. McGregor, who told the court he had consensual sex with Ms Hand, launched an appeal after a jury of eight women and four men found him civilly liable for assault. That appeal was expected to contain fresh evidence following an affidavit from a former neighbour of Ms Hand, Samantha O'Reilly, who said she had witnessed a physical row between Ms Hand and her then-partner at about the same time of the incident at the Beacon hotel. Ms Hand denies any altercation with her former partner and the court heard she characterised the claims from Ms O'Reilly and Ms O'Reilly's partner Steven Cummins as 'lies'. On Tuesday, McGregor's legal team dramatically withdrew that ground of appeal, saying it would no longer be relying on the material. On Wednesday, Ms Hand's lawyer John Gordon SC said she had been disadvantaged by 'highly disparaging and unfair criticisms' in 'widely published' claims from the affidavits, adding that she did not have a chance to reply to them in court before they were withdrawn. Mr Gordon said the application to introduce the witnesses was not just to produce further evidence, but also to 'undermine my client's reputation', including by stating she had lied. Mark Mulholland KC, for McGregor, had raised concerns that the request was an attempt to get the matter on the record for the media, adding that this would be 'wholly inappropriate'. Mr Gordon said Ms Hand was 'put through the wringer yet again' and expressed a desire to cross examine Mr Cummins and Ms O'Reilly. He asked the Court of Appeal to use its powers to refer matters to the DPP, citing concerns around perjury. The three judges of the court, Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy, Mr Justice Brian O'Moore and Mr Justice Patrick MacGrath, said they would do so. After a day and a half of representations, they also said they would reserve their judgment on the appeal matters to a later date, adding that decisions relating to costs that arose during deliberations would be decided at that point also. Ms Hand, also known as Nikita Ni Laimhin, was awarded around £200,000 in damages and McGregor was also ordered to pay about £1.1million in legal costs following November's trial. McGregor's appeal proceeded on other grounds, largely relating to the circumstances under which his 'no comment' answers to gardai were allowed to enter the trial. Remy Farrell SC, also for McGregor, said on Tuesday that an 'enormous amount of no comment material' had been entered into the hearings to no actual proper end. He said this occurred under cross-examination by Mr Gordon and was based on an 'entirely incorrect' paraphrasing of what the appellant had actually said. Mr Farrell said his client had made a comment about wanting to seek the best advice from his solicitors and accused Ms Hand's side of incorrectly interpreting the same comments as a suggestion that McGregor had sought to present himself as someone who was being fully co-operative with gardai. Ray Boland SC, for Ms Hand, said it was clear from a holistic consideration of McGregor's evidence that he was putting forward that he wanted to be as co-operative as possible with the investigation. He said it was appropriate for the line of questioning on the no-comment answers to be admissible. Meanwhile, McGregor's co-defendant has also appealed against the trial judge's decision not to award him his legal costs. During the same trial in November, the jury did not find James Lawrence had assaulted Ms Hand at the hotel. However, trial judge Mr Justice Alexander Owens decided that Ms Hand would not have to pay Mr Lawrence's costs arising out of the proceedings. His legal team is challenging whether that decision was correct and reasonable, arguing that Ms Hand should have to pay as the jury did not find he had assaulted her. Mr Boland said the success of Mr Lawrence's appeal would present 'grubby realities' where McGregor would effectively 'snaffle' back money he had to pay in damages. He told the court that it had been confirmed that McGregor was paying Mr Lawrence's legal costs. He said that the legal bill for Mr Lawrence, which would be due to be paid by Ms Hand if his appeal is successful, is likely to exceed the award of damages to be paid by McGregor. Mr Boland said this would set the jury's verdict on damages 'at nought' when McGregor was 'preparing to pay over the balance' of all costs relating to the matters. He said that McGregor would 'snaffle' back the money he is paying for damages if the appeal of 'his avatar' meant that Ms Hand had to pay Mr Lawrence's costs instead. He said this would not be in the interests of justice. John Fitzgerald SC, for Mr Lawrence, said Mr Owens made the decision not to award costs based on an incorrect interpretation of the jury's verdict and that his client had an entitlement to costs. The Irish Court of Appeal has reserved its judgment in relation to the appeals of McGregor and Lawrence and will give its decisions at a later date.
The Independent
a day ago
- The Independent
Nikita Hand's lawyer asks court to refer McGregor appeal affidavits to DPP
The Irish Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) should examine affidavits making accusations against a woman who sued Conor McGregor, her lawyers have said, after the fighter decided to withdraw them from his appeal. Former hairdresser Nikita Hand, 35, successfully sued McGregor in a civil court over an incident in which he was alleged to have 'brutally raped and battered' her in a penthouse at a south Dublin hotel in December 2018. During a three-week case at the High Court in Dublin last November, McGregor told the court he had consensual sex with Ms Hand. After six hours and 10 minutes of deliberating, the jury of eight women and four men found McGregor civilly liable for assault. Ms Hand, also known as Nikita Ni Laimhin, was awarded 248,603.60 euros (about £206,000) in damages. Her lawyers have said she was disadvantaged by 'highly disparaging and unfair criticisms' in 'widely published' claims McGregor brought as part of his appeal that she did not have a chance to reply to in court before they were withdrawn. It related to affidavits from two former neighbours of Ms Hand which said she had been assaulted by her then-partner at around the same time of the incident at the hotel. On Tuesday, McGregor's legal team dramatically withdrew that ground of appeal which would have introduced the new evidence into the proceedings – saying it would no longer be relying on the material. John Gordon SC, for Ms Hand, said it was 'frankly not appropriate' for the ground to be withdrawn at a late basis. He said his client, who had denied accusations within the affidavits, had been 'put through the wringer yet again'. On Wednesday, Mr Gordon raised the matters again and asked the Court of Appeal to use its jurisdiction to refer matters to the DPP. He said the application on the affidavits had been made 'some months ago' and the material the proposed witnesses were due to raise had been 'published widely'. He said the court was aware of the 'scale of the accusations' made against his client, which he said were a series of 'highly disparaging and unfair criticisms' including that she had been lying. Mr Gordon said the application to introduce the witnesses was not just to produce further evidence, but also to 'undermine my client's reputation'. He said Ms Hand had described what was alleged as lies in her responding affidavit and that she should have been entitled for her opportunity to 'call this out in court'. He said his client had been disadvantaged by the application. Mr Gordon also said it amounted to discontinuation of part of the appeal and asked the court to add terms of the payment of costs to Ms Hand's side. Mark Mulholland KC, for McGregor, said that withdrawing the application did not amount to a discontinuation of proceedings and if Mr Gordon believed that a criminal investigation was necessary, it should be dealt with in that forum rather than the court. Speaking before Mr Gordon dealt substantively with the issue on Wednesday, Mr Mulholland said it was an attempt to get the matter on the record for the media, adding that this would be 'wholly inappropriate'. He said costs relating to this specific part of the appeal should be adjudicated within the final determination. He said he had no further comment to make on whether the matters should be referred to the DPP. The judges expressed concern that dealing with the materials relating to the affidavits created a risk of prejudicing any potential criminal prosecution. Meanwhile, the appeal, which has yet to be decided, had proceeded on other grounds largely relating to the circumstances under which his 'no comment' answers to gardai were allowed to enter the trial. Remy Farrell, SC, also for McGregor, said on Tuesday that an 'enormous amount of no comment material' had been entered into the hearings to no actual proper end. He said this occurred under cross-examination by Mr Gordon and was based on an 'entirely incorrect' paraphrasing of what the appellant had actually said. Mr Farrell said his client had made a comment about wanting to seek the best advice from his solicitors and accused Ms Hand's side of incorrectly interpreting the same comments as a suggestion that McGregor had sought to present himself as someone who was being fully co-operative with gardai. Ray Boland SC, for Ms Hand, said it was clear from a holistic consideration of McGregor's evidence that he was putting forward that he wanted to be as co-operative as possible with the investigation.
BreakingNews.ie
a day ago
- BreakingNews.ie
McGregor could use Lawrence appeal as ‘avatar' to reduce legal bill, court told
Conor McGregor's co-defendant winning an appeal over costs would present 'grubby realities' where the fighter effectively 'snaffles' back money he had to pay in damages, the Court of Appeal has been told. Lawyers for a woman who successfully sued McGregor have argued he could use his co-defendant as an 'avatar' because the mixed martial arts fighter had paid his legal costs. Advertisement Judges at the Court of Appeal in Dublin are considering applications from both McGregor and James Lawrence, who was the co-defendant in a civil case taken last year. Former hairdresser Nikita Hand, 35, successfully sued McGregor over an incident in which he was alleged to have 'brutally raped and battered' her in a penthouse at the Beacon Hotel in Dublin in December 2018. Conor McGregor outside the High Court in Dublin in 2024 (Brian Lawless/PA) Ms Hand, also known as Nikita Ni Laimhin, was awarded €248,603.60 in damages and McGregor was also ordered to pay about €1.3 million in legal costs. The jury did not find that Mr Lawrence had assaulted her during the same series of incidents at the hotel. Advertisement The trial judge decided that Ms Hand would not have to pay Mr Lawrence's costs arising out of the proceedings. His legal team is challenging whether that decision was correct and reasonable, arguing that Ms Hand should have to pay as the jury did not find he had assaulted her. Nikita Hand won her civil case against the mixed martial arts fighter (Niall Carson/PA) Meanwhile, McGregor's lawyers are arguing that the jury heard an inadmissible line of questioning about his co-operation with gardaí into their investigation of the matter. On Wednesday, Ray Boland SC, for Ms Hand, told the court that it had been confirmed that McGregor was paying Mr Lawrence's legal costs. Advertisement He said that the legal bill for Mr Lawrence, which would be due to be paid by Ms Hand if his appeal is successful, is likely to exceed the award of damages to be paid by McGregor. Mr Boland said this would set the jury's verdict on damages 'at naught' when McGregor was 'preparing to pay over the balance' of all costs relating to the matters. He said that McGregor would 'snaffle' back the money he is paying for damages if the appeal of 'his avatar' meant that Ms Hand had to pay Mr Lawrence's costs instead. He said this would not be in the interests of justice. Advertisement John Fitzgerald SC, for Mr Lawrence, said an 'unusual situation' had arisen in the case around the interpretation of the jury's verdict by trial judge Alexander Owens. He said the point he was making in the appeal was essentially that 'costs follow the event'. Given the principle of jury secrecy, he said the event is the verdict and not a subsequent interpretation of it. Mr Fitzgerald said the verdict was that Mr Lawrence had not assaulted Ms Hand. Advertisement He said said his client had said that he had consensual sex with Ms Hand. He added that Ms Hand had also said she did not believe they had sex, and that Mr Lawrence was lying. Mr Fitzgerald said this begs the question as to how it made its way into a pleading on her behalf. He said it had been open to Ms Hand not to sue Mr Lawrence. Mr Fitzgerald said trial judge Mr Alexander Owens' decision not to award costs was based on his incorrect interpretation of the jury's verdict. He said Mr Owens could have added additional questions to the issue paper or asked the jury direct questions about their verdict. He said said defendants had a presumptive entitlement to costs and 'we shouldn't even be having this discussion'. Ray Boland, SC, for Ms Hand, said this entitlement arises where they have incurred expenses – but this was not the case for Mr Lawrence as there was an 'unusual situation' that McGregor had borne the costs. He said it was 'rich' for Mr Fitzgerald to be raising the matter in appeal when there was 'deafening silence' from him during discussions on the issue paper and whether there should have been additional questions for the jury following the verdict. Mr Fitzgerald said the purpose of the appeal was to consider the correctness of the judge's reasoning – and that he had been satisfied with the issue paper. On the argument that it would deprive Ms Hand of her damages, Mr Fitzgerald said there had to be cost implications for her choice to bring a case 'she never believed in'. Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy said Mr Boland was making a 'difficult' argument by asking judges at the Court of Appeal to consider the consequences of their verdict as it was their job to consider whether the trial decision was appropriate. Ms Justice Kennedy and the other two judges presiding over the proceedings continue to consider other matters relating to the appeals.
