Dundon brothers in bid to have threat convictions quashed

David Hurley

Reporter:

David Hurley

The DPP unsuccessfully appealed the sentence imposed on Wayne Dundon. Below, his brother John
AN appeal taken by two Limerick brothers against their convictions for threatening to kill four members of the same family may not now take place until early next year.

AN appeal taken by two Limerick brothers against their convictions for threatening to kill four members of the same family may not now take place until early next year.

Wayne Dundon, aged 37 and John Dundon, aged 31, who each have addresses in Prospect, received lengthy prison sentences in April 2012 relating to offences which happened on dates in 2010 and 2011.

On Friday, an appeal taken by both men was adjourned to allow Wayne Dundon to seek the disclosure of certain documentation.

A new date for the hearing will set in the coming weeks.

Separately, an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions against the “undue leniency” of the six-year prison sentence imposed on Wayne Dundon has been dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

Shane Costello SC, said it was the view of the DPP that the Special Criminal Court erred in its original ruling by not allowing the admission of a victim impact statement.

He also submitted that a previous conviction for threatening to kill a city barman outside the pub where he worked was not properly considered by the court.

Opposing the appeal, Michael Bowman SC, said the original sentencing court at the time was a “collegiate court of experience” and had properly considered everything relating to the witnesses and victims during the trial.

Mr Bowman added that it was “incomprehensible to think that the sentencing judges forgot about the previous convictions as everything relating to submissions, details of antecedent history and decision happened in immediate succession”.

After briefly considering the matter, the three judges - Mr Justice George Bermingham, sitting with Mr Justice Alan Mahon and Mr Justice John Edwards - indicated the court was refusing the appeal and did not intend reviewing the sentence imposed.

Mr Justice Bermingham said a detailed judgement outlining the reasons for the court’s decision will be delivered on a future date.

There was tight security at the Court of Appeal during the proceedings.