DPP v Campbell, Court of Appeal, 9th Mar

| | [Home ]
[Databases ]
[World Law ]
[Multidatabase Search ]
[Help ]
[Feedback ]
[DONATE ] | |
| # Irish Court of Appeal | | |
| You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Irish Court of Appeal >>

  The Director of Public Prosecutions v Campbell (Approved) [2026] IECA 46 (09 March 2026)

URL: https://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECA/2026/2026IECA46.html
Cite as:
[2026] IECA 46 | | |
[New search ]

[Printable PDF version ]

[Help ]

harp graphic.

APPROVED

NO REDACTION NEEDED

THE COURT OF APPEAL

?Neutral Citation:? [2026] IECA 46

Record Number: 330/24

Burns J.

O'Moore J.

Hyland J.

BETWEEN/

THE PEOPLE AT THE SUIT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

RESPONDENT

• AND -

?????????

ZACH CAMPBELL

APPELLANT

JUDGMENT of the Court delivered on the 9th day of March, 2026 by Ms. Justice Tara Burns.

1.?????? This is an appeal against sentence. On 25 October 2024, following a trial before the Circuit Criminal Court, the appellant was found guilty of two counts of demanding money with menaces contrary to s. 17 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994, as amended ('s. 17 offence'). The appellant was acquitted of one count of production of an article contrary to s. 11 of the Firearms and Offensive Weapon Act 1990.?

2.?????? On 26 November 2024 the appellant was sentenced to 6 years' imprisonment in respect of Count 1 and a concurrent term of 8 years' imprisonment in respect of Count 2, with the final 12 months suspended on certain terms and conditions.??

Background

3.?????? On the evening of 24 February 2019, the appellant attended at the victims' home (situated in a cul-de-sac) where an elderly couple and their two adult sons resided. The father of the house opened the door to the appellant who identified himself and proceeded to indicate that Conor (one of the son's of the house owner) owed him ?2,500. The appellant indicated that if he did not get the money from Conor, he would get the money from his family. The other son came to the door and told the appellant to leave the property. As the appellant left, he shouted "this is not over".

4.?????? Prior to this incident, several vehicles not associated with the cul-de-sac had been noticed passing the house by members of the family.?

?

5.?????? On the evening of 25 March 2019, the appellant re-attended at the victims' home. On this occasion the mother of the house answered the door. The father and the son who previously had spoken with the appellant also came to the front door. On this occasion, the appellant was accompanied by two other individuals, one of whom was carrying a bat whilst the other individual carried an object that looked like a knife. One of these men stood at the gate of the house. The appellant indicated that they were there for their money and issued threats against the family. The father of the house produced a legally held shotgun and discharged a shot (from a rock salt cartridge) over the head over the appellant. Whilst the appellant and his associates ran from the house, the appellant reiterated his threat that "this is not over".??????

?

6.?????? Conor had not returned to the family home after the first incident. A mobile phone belonging to him had been left in the family home. After the phone was powered up, a call was received on this phone from "Zach Campbell" who demanded his money and wanted to know where Conor was. The other son, who had answered the phone, recognised the voice of the caller as the person who had come to the front door and made the demands for money.? Subsequent facebook searches revealed the appellant to be this individual.???

7.?????? The appellant was arrested and detained by An Garda S?och?na on 26 April 2019. In the course of his detention, nothing of evidential value emerged.

8.?????? Victim impact evidence was before the court which detailed the significant effect the offending had on each of the occupants of the house and on their family life. Conor, who was asserted to owe the appellant money, had not returned home since the first incident, nor had the family any contact with him since then.????

Personal Circumstances of the Appellant

9.?????? The appellant was 29 years of age at the time of the commission of these offences. He had previously worked as a steel fabricator but had sustained an injury rendering him incapable of continuing with work of this nature.? The appellant has 55 previous convictions, to include convictions in respect of public order; possession of drugs; possession of drugs for sale or supply; and theft. In addition, the appellant had a previous conviction for another s. 17 offence. That offending occurred on 17 November 2023, whilst the appellant was on bail in respect of the instant offending and was accompanied by offences of assault causing harm and possession of an article with intent to cause injury. On 24 June 2024, a 6 year term of imprisonment was imposed on the appellant with 6 months suspended and ?9,000 paid in compensation. With respect to that offending, the appellant's release date is December 2027.? In addition, the appellant had a history of drug addiction.

Sentencing Judge's Determination

10.???? On 26 November 2024 the sentencing judge pronounced sentence on the appellant in the following manner:-

?????????????? "There are a number of seriously aggravating factors in the case.? Firstly, there's the accused's prior list of convictions, 55 in total, including 34 for road traffic offences, six for public orders, six for possession, simple possession of drugs, one for a section 15 sale and supply, two for theft. But by far the most damning of his prior convictions relate to a similar type of offending, and not just similar type offending but similar type offending whilst the [victims] were waiting for this case to come on for trial.? It will be recalled that the offending in this case, for which he is now being sentenced, occurred in February and March 2019.? The section 4E application was in April 2022. Yet, in November of 2023, the accused was involved in blackmail and a section 3 assault. This was dealt with in this court on the 21st of June of this year. In addition to this offending, the offending in question occurred at a family home of an elderly couple.? It had nothing to do with them. By the time of the second offending, there were two others accompanying the accused. The victim impact statements highlight the effect that this offending had on this couple, and the persons questioned, two of them, were two elderly pensioners.?

?????????????? What can be said in favour of the accused has been advanced by Mr Fitzgerald, namely, he is somebody with a drug addiction problem.? He had an occupation as a steel fabricator in the past. This has been lost to him by reason of an injury which has been highlighted in a report from the National Rehabilitation Hospital, where he had suffered a decompression of his spine, having been diagnosed with a ... due to an L3/L4 disc bulge and an L4/5 osteophyte complex. This has been addressed, however, has left him with some reduced weakness in his lower limbs, which probably will interfere, in time, with his return to work as a steel fabricator.? In prison, he has a fairly positive governor's report, which has been provided to the Court.?

?????????????? These type of offendings, namely, the enforcement of drug debts is a type of offending which this court takes very seriously. People are frightened out of their wits at this carry-on of people turning up and demanding money and demanding the payment of a drug debt by a member of the family, turning up in the middle of the night and, in the case of the second offending here, in the company of others. The offending in question here, particularly in relation to the March 2019 event, is at the higher end, and it seems to me to warrant a sentence of imprisonment of 10 years.? Having regard to McCormack principles, however, I have to sentence an accused having regard to the circumstances of the individual in question, and in this case, I propose to impose a sentence of eight years' imprisonment on the accused.? I will impose a lesser sentence in relation to count No. 1, solely because the circumstances on the night were not as serious as count No. 2.? But I will impose a sentence of six years' imprisonment on Count No. 1.?

?????????????? Now, having regard to the mitigating factors, it seems to me that the aggravating factors in this case effectively wipe out any mitigation to which the accused is entitled. The events, and particularly the subsequent offending in the middle of the? waiting for this matter to get on for trial, was such that there's very little mitigation that I can afford the accused, but lest I'm in any way harsh on him, I will suspend, in the case of the sentence of eight years imposed on count No. 2, the final one year of that sentence, on condition that he enters into a bond in the sum of ?200 to keep the peace and be of good behaviour and not come to garda attention within the year of suspension.? He can enter into that bond now.? And the sentence will commence from today's date, there'll be no backdating of the sentence."

Grounds of Appeal

11.???? By notice of appeal dated 14 December 2024 the appellant indicated his desire to appeal his sentence on the following grounds:-

1.?????? "The trial judge erred in principle in imposing sentences which were overly severe, excessive and disproportionate to the offending behaviour.

2.?????? The trial judge erred in fact and in law in sentencing the appellant on the basis that his offending was the making of demands with menaces to enforce repayment of a 'drug debt'. There was no evidence of the involvement of drugs debt put forward at trial and the prosecution was not proceeded with on that basis. The particulars of the counts in the indictment upon which the convictions were registered was for the 'unwarranted demand' of a 'debt' having been previously amended on the application of the Director of Public Prosecutions to delete a reference to a "drug debt".

3.?????? The learned trial judge erred in fact and in law in identifying as an aggravating factor in both counts of demanding with menace that they were made for the purpose of enforcement of a drug debt.

4.?????? The learned trial judge erred in fact and in law in setting the headline sentence on count 1 as 8 years and on count 2 10 years imprisonment. These headline sentences were severe, excessive and disproportionate and do not reflect the actual facts of the case."

The Parties Submissions

12.???? The appellant submitted that in circumstances where evidence was not adduced that the debt owed to the appellant was a drug debt, the trial judge's reference to a drug debt, amounted to the appellant being sentenced for an offence which did not accurately reflect the facts of the case. It was submitted that in these circumstances the sentence was excessive and disproportionate to the offending in this matter. The appellant further submitted that the headline sentences identified of 10 years and 8 years respectively was disproportionate in light of the jurisprudence on sentencing for s. 17 offences.

13.???? The respondent submitted that the sentencing judge did not err in his nomination of the headline sentences having regard to the particular facts of the case and the circumstances surrounding the threatening demands which were made.???

Discussion and Determination

14.???? In DPP v. Molloy [2021] IR 494, the Supreme Court delivered a sentencing guideline decision relating to harassment and s. 17 offences.? Charleton J, delivering the judgment of the court stated:-

?????????????? "By way of summary, and for the purpose of guidance, it is possible to state the following: a consideration of the maximum sentence for harassment or menaces or blackmailing type of offences should involve a consideration of structured and thought-through planning that aims to cause real distress to the victim, most especially where what is involved is not an aberration brought about by severe emotional distress, but a prolonged campaign. In that regard what must be borne in mind is that these kinds of offences are very serious for victims and become more so where personal factors are identified by the perpetrator so that the victim is leant on in a way which undermines the integrity of their personality. This kind of conduct has the effect of pushing emotions to the edge of manageability and of shaking what may be, or what may thereby become, an already fragile emotional state. Sentences of seven years may be appropriate as a headline tariff and worse cases involving gang action for cynical gain may tend more towards the maximum."

?????

15.???? The difficulty with the applicability of the sentencing bands identified in Molloy to a s. 17 offence, of the nature currently being considered, are numerous. In the first instance, the facts considered in Molloy related to a harassment offence rather than a s. 17 offence. In addition, the previous sentencing decisions regarding s. 17 offences considered in Molloy did not relate to demands being made in respect of a debt emanating from criminality. Furthermore, the basis of the identification of the appropriate sentencing bands by the Supreme Court has altered since the decision in Molloy, in that the maximum sentence which can be imposed in respect of the offence of harassment has increased to 10 years' imprisonment from 7 years' imprisonment. These considerations are separate to the fact that a significant disparity existed with respect to the maximum sentences which could be imposed in respect of the offence of harassment and a s. 17 offence, namely 7 years and 14 years respectively. Some of these issues have already been commented upon by this Court in DPP v. Fitzsimons [2025] IECA 246.??????????????

??????????

16.???? With respect to the identification of a headline sentence in relation to a s. 17 offence, two recent cases before this Court are instructive.

17.???? In DPP v. Kelly [2025] IECA 253, in the context of a drug debt of ?6,000 having been repaid, threatening demands were made against a father and a son for a late payment fee of ?1,000. Demands via phone contact had been made for a lengthy period prior to the offence date and had a significant impact on the son which the appellant was aware of. An 8 year headline sentence identified by the sentencing judge was upheld by this Court?

18.???? In Fitzsimons, this Court found that the identification of a headline sentence of 10 years' imprisonment in respect of a s. 17 offence could be within the sentencing judge's discretion in circumstances where a demand for ?100,000 was made, accompanied by a threat to find the victims' son who had incurred the debt by involvement with dangerous people. However, on the particular facts of that case, the moral culpability of that appellant was found to be reduced in light of the duress which it was accepted he was operating under. Accordingly, the Court found that a headline sentence in the region of 8 to 9 years' imprisonment was more appropriate to the offending which presented.??

??

19.???? The appellant complains that the sentencing judge erred by identifying a headline sentence of 10 years' imprisonment in respect of Count 2 and 8 years' imprisonment in respect of Count 1. A careful reading of the transcript of the sentencing hearing reveals that this does not appear to be the case.? Rather a headline sentence of 8 years' imprisonment appears to have been identified in respect of Count 2 and a headline of 6 years' imprisonment appears to have been identified in respect of Count 1. These were the sentences identified by the sentencing judge before he proceeded to consider mitigatory factors, as is clear from his sentencing remarks set out earlier. While the sentencing judge refers to the serious nature of the offending in respect of Count 2 being of a nature that it warranted a headline sentence of 10 years' imprisonment, it is not at all clear that he actually identified that headline sentence in the instant case having regard to the moral culpability of the appellant. Indeed, contrary to what is stated in paragraph 4 of the appellant's Notice of Appeal, there is no reference to 8 years' imprisonment being the appropriate headline sentence in respect of Count 1 at all. Furthermore, had 10 years and 8 years' imprisonment been identified by the sentencing judge as the appropriate headline sentences for this offending, his reduction of 2 years' imprisonment from each of those headline sentences for mitigatory factors would be incomprehensible in light of the fact that he specifically states (and is correct) that there was very little by way of mitigation available to the appellant in the instant matter.?

20.???? The appellant makes a complaint about a specific error on the part of the sentencing judge, namely that he made the assumption that the demand was in respect of a drugs debt and factored this into the sentence imposed on the appellant, when no such evidence was before the court (having been objected to by the appellant at an earlier stage of the proceedings).? However, in the course of the hearing before this Court, it was accepted by Counsel for the appellant that the asserted accrual of the debt arose from criminal behaviour. In light of that concession, it seems to us to be of little consequence whether the asserted debt was a drugs debt or a debt in relation to some other criminal behaviour.

21.???? The offending in this matter was of a very serious nature. While there was no evidence that the demand was in respect of a drugs debt, the circumstances of the offending could only lead to the conclusion that the money sought was in respect of criminal activity, as accepted on behalf of the appellant.

22.???? Demanding money in respect of any criminal activity, whether drug related or otherwise, in the circumstances arising in this case is a serious aggravating feature and the disparity between drug debts and debts relating to other criminal activity, in terms of assessing the seriousness of the s. 17 offence, is of little consequence.?

23.???? Accordingly, the complaint that the judge proceeded on the basis that the debt related to drugs when there was no evidence of this, rather than criminal activity (which was accepted by the appellant) has no consequence with respect of the overall assessment of the serious nature of the offending in the instant case.

24.???? Having regard to the considerations in Molloy, the offending in the instant matter was planned, involving the identification and attendance, in the hours of darkness, at a family home. It was aimed to instil fear in the victims by the circumstances of the approach and the words spoken, and caused real distress. Furthermore, the demand related to criminal behaviour of some nature. With respect to the second occurrence, the repeat offending was further aggravated by the appellant being accompanied by two associates who were carrying implements.?

25.???? Whether the sentencing judge intended to identify a 10 year (Count 2) and 8 year (Count 1) headline sentence and then reduce the sentences by 2 years to reflect mitigatory factors (which were minimal) before, in addition, suspending 12 months from the sentence, or whether he intended to identify an 8 year (Count 2) and 6 year (Count 1) headline sentence in respect of which he suspended a 12 month period of imprisonment, the fact remains that the sentences imposed were appropriate sentences in light of the extremely serious nature of the offending, particularly having regard to the fact that these sentences are to run concurrently with the previous conviction for a s. 17 offence committed whilst the appellant was on bail in respect of the instant offending.

26.???? We therefore are of the view that an error in principle has not been established such that an inappropriate term of imprisonment has been imposed upon the appellant which would require us to intervene.??????????

Conclusion

27.???? In the circumstances, we dismiss the appellant's appeal against sentence.

Result:     Dismissed.

Approved

No Redaction Needed

??????

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: https://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECA/2026/2026IECA46.html