A criminal with 231 previous convictions who threatened to throw ammonia in a female garda’s face, attacked two prison officers and stashed an imitation handgun in a tree will serve his full time in prison after a court rejected his complaint that his 5½-year sentence was excessive.
At the Court of Appeal on Wednesday, Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy said that the female garda had taken the threat by Michael Farrell (32) very seriously, while the two prison officers had both suffered significant injuries. The court rejected Farrell’s contention that the sentencing judge in his case had taken inadequate account of his personal circumstances.
The State had asserted that Farrell is a “recidivist criminal” who has amassed over 200 convictions and has spent numerous periods of time in jail. When sentenced last December, Farrell remarked, “You’d get less for manslaughter”, before he was escorted away by prison officers.
Passing sentence at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court, Judge Elma Sheahan noted that Farrell had acquired a serious brain injury when he was knocked down by a coal truck at the age of six, leaving him with a mild intellectual disability. She sentenced Farrell to six years in prison with the final six months suspended.
Donald Trump is changing America in ways that will reverberate long after he is dead
The jawdropper; the quickest split; the good turn: Miriam Lord’s 2024 Political Awards
The mystery is not why we Irish have responded to Israel’s barbarism. It’s why others have not
Enoch Burke released from prison as judge doubles fine for showing up at school
Farrell, of Montpelier Gardens, Dublin, 7, had pleaded guilty to two counts of assault causing harm in 2022, one count of threatening to kill or cause serious harm in 2021 and a fourth count of possessing a realistic imitation firearm in a tree at his home.
At his sentencing hearing, the court was told Farrell launched unprovoked attacks on two prison officers on March 10th, 2022, in Mountjoy Prison, striking one with a closed fist on his mouth which then required three stitches. A second prison officer intervened to try and restrain Farrell and suffered a fracture to his little finger in the process.
The court also heard that, in March the previous year, Farrell was undergoing psychological assessment at Cloverhill Prison. He referred to a female garda who had previously objected to his bail, stating that when he saw her, he would “throw a bottle of ammonia” in her face. When asked to retract this threat, Farrell responded: “I don’t care.”
The fourth count related to an incident in 2020 when gardaí found a firearm hidden in a tree in his garden. The weapon was analysed and found to be a realistic imitation firearm.
Launching an appeal against his sentence earlier this month, Karl Monahan, counsel for Farrell, submitted that the sentencing judge took inadequate account of Farrell’s personal circumstances.
Mr Monahan suggested the judge erred in failing to give significant regard to the rehabilitation of the appellant, in particular by suspending only the final six months of the total sentence imposed.
In delivering the Court of Appeal’s judgment, Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy said that the garda who was threatened by Farrell took the threat to kill very seriously, as the appellant had previously spat at gardaí during public order matters.
He said that the prison assaults were also very serious, as one prison officer was being assaulted by Farrell when a second came to his aid, resulting in both officers suffering significant injuries.
Mr Justice McCarthy said that the appellant had a very large number of previous convictions and had spent a great deal of time in prison. He noted that Farrell had suffered head injuries as a child, leaving him with a mental age of potentially between nine and 12 years old, which the judge said was not without significance.
Mr Justice McCarthy said that the defence counsel could not criticise the headline sentences imposed, but that their position amounted to a contention that the period in custody cumulatively was excessive, which was an error in principle.
Remarking that he took the view that the sentencing judge did not fall into error, Mr Justice McCarty said that the court was rejecting the appeal.
- Sign up for push alerts and have the best news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone
- Join The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date
- Listen to our Inside Politics podcast for the best political chat and analysis