The Supreme Court has endorsed a 12-year incarceration for a burglary accomplice who specifically targeted the homes of seniors while they were at church. When his fellow burglars were detained during a break-in at a rural house in Co Cork, John Faulkner (41), who had been on standby outside, hastily fled. He drove recklessly at high velocities, ignoring traffic rules and taking blind turns while the police chased him, claimed Mr Justice Peter Charleton in his statement representing the highest court. Faulkner, a resident of Adelaide Place, St Luke’s, Cork, refuted the charges but was found guilty by a jury in April 2021. He was given a 12-year sentence for the burglary, plus concurrent two-year sentences for risking others’ lives and dangerous driving.
The burglars detained at the location on October 19th, 2019, admitted to their guilt and were sentenced to nine years in jail in 2020. However, they had two years deducted due to extenuating circumstances. Faulkner appealed his sentence first to the Court of Appeal in 2022, and then to the Supreme Court on Thursday. Both courts dismissed his appeals.
According to Mr Justice Charleton, burglary is a “serious crime with disturbing, yet frequently hidden, impacts on its victims”. Under section 12(3) of the Theft and Fraud Offences Act of 2001, it can lead to a maximum of 14 years in prison and a fine. Faulkner’s legal representatives contended that his sentence is excessive in comparison to the seven years handed down to his partners in crime.
However, Mr Justice Charleton determined that the sentencing judge was right to consider that unlike his partners, Faulkner executed the getaway strategy from the elderly couple’s home, who were 86 and 89 respectively at the time. “His hasty and reckless escape not only endangered all road users, but it was a significant part of the crime,” he further elaborated.
With regard to the charges against Faulkner, he was lawfully authorised to make the prosecutorial team substantiate their allegations, yet this course of action was deemed inadvisable, according to Mr Justice Charleton. There were no observable extenuating circumstances based on the provided evidence, consequently justifying the verdict, as Mr Justice Charleton maintained. The judgement received the endorsement from Ms Justice Iseult O’Malley, Mr Justice Séamus Woulfe, Mr Justice Gerard Hogan, and Mr Justice Brian Murray.