Three Waterford men who ambushed a prison van to facilitate the escape of a convicted armed robber have had their two-year sentences increased by the Court of Criminal Appeal.
The court yesterday upheld the DPP's argument that the two-year term was unduly lenient and imposed five-year sentences on Christopher Connolly (27), Priory Lawn, Ballybeg, Derek Dunphy (26), Clonard Park, Ballybeg, and Anthony Keating (35), Morrison's Road, for their part in effecting the escape of Adrian Duke, Farranree, Cork, as he returned from Waterford Circuit Criminal Court on February 1st, 2001.
Duke was recaptured, and two years were added to his original 10-year sentence, imposed in June 2001 for a €8,900 raid on a McDonald's restaurant at Douglas, Cork.
Mr Justice Fennelly, with Ms Justice Carroll and Mr Justice White, said the ambush was an extremely serious crime involving a deliberate and well-organised scheme to release a prisoner from lawful custody by organised violence.
The judge said Connolly knew Duke, while the other two did not. Connolly was approached by a man in a pub and told about the plan to effect Duke's escape.
Connolly took part in the organising and planning through arranging for a car. He and the other two men travelled in that car with another man who had a handgun.
The car waited outside Waterford city for a prison van in which Duke was travelling after his appearance in court. It drove behind the van for a time and then moved out.
Dunphy had said the man seated beside him pointed a handgun out his window at the van-driver and ordered him to stop.
The van was subsequently pinned in a ditch, windows were broken with hammers wielded by Connolly and Keating and Duke emerged from the rear.
The three men were later captured and made full statements admitting their part in the ambush.
Mr Justice Fennelly noted that Keating had a serious alcohol problem dating back many years, and all three had significant records of previous convictions for a range of offences.
The judge said the three prison officers in the van were not injured, but all three gave evidence to the trial court that the event was shocking and alarming. They had suffered psychologically to varying degrees.
The court could not differentiate between the three in relation to responsibility for the crime.
It accepted that the impetus for the crime came from elsewhere and perhaps from people who might have frightened them to such an extent that they would not name those persons. However, they had provided the means for the escape.
The judge said the DPP had established that the two-year sentence imposed was unduly lenient and represented a substantial and clear divergence from the norm.