R v Laurence Creaney
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | McCloskey LJ |
| Judgment Date | 10 November 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] NICA 75 |
| Date | 10 November 2023 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2023] NICA 75
Judgment: approved by the court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: McC12316
ICOS No: 20/075749/A01
Delivered: 10/11/2023
IN HIS MAJESTY’S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND
ON APPEAL FROM BELFAST CROWN COURT
_________
REX
v
LAURENCE CREANEY
_________
Mr Conor O’Kane (instructed by Carlin Solicitors) for the appellant
Mr James Johnston (instructed by the Public Prosecution Service) for the respondent
_________
Before: Keegan LCJ, McCloskey LJ, and Kinney J
_________
McCLOSKEY LJ (delivering the judgment of the court)
INDEX
Subject Paragraph No
Introduction 1
Grounds of Appeal 2-3
Chronology 4
Applications and Rulings 5-14
The Sentencing of the Appellant 15-20
The Sentencing of the Co-Accused 21
The Appellant’s Pleas 22-25
First Ground of Appeal: Rejection of Mitigation 26-30
Third and Fourth Grounds: Disparate Sentences 34-37
Final Ground: Sentencing Guidelines Publication 38-43
Guidance 44-55
Omnibus Conclusion 56
2
Introduction
[1] Laurence Creaney (“the appellant”) renews his application for leave to appeal
to this court, leave having been refused by the single judge, against the imposition of
a determinate custodial sentence, for an offence of arson, of three years
imprisonment, divided equally into custodial and licenced release periods, at Belfast
Crown Court on 15 September 2023.
Grounds of Appeal
[2] The umbrella ground of appeal is that the sentence is manifestly excessive.
This is particularised in the following way:
(a) The trial judge erred in declining to accept the appellant’s “main mitigation
point” namely that he “… committed the offences at the behest, direction and
under severe pressure, coercion, intimidation and exploitation” from [“Mr X”]
who “… on the Crown case is a drugs gang lord and murderer.”
(b) The judge erred in “ruling” that “… he would not accept the appellant’s main
mitigation point … unless the appellant went into the witness box in open
court and gave oral evidence against Mr X. This was in clear breach of the
(c) Whereas the appellant’s co-accused (Ms Chanelle Walker) advanced the same
ground of mitigation, the judge did not subject her to the same “ruling.”
(d) The judge “… incorrectly and wrongly distinguished the appellant’s
sentencing from that of … Ms Walker.”
[3] It is contended on behalf of the appellant by Mr O’Kane, of counsel, that the
sentencing of the appellant should have taken the form of a non-custodial disposal
namely a suspended sentence, an enhanced combination order or a deferred
sentence.
Chronology
[4] The following are the salient dates and events in the chronology of the
prosecution and sentencing of the appellant:
(a) 3 November 2019: commission of the offence.
(b) 14/15 November 2019: arrest/interview/remand in custody.
(c) 19 November 2020: committal for trial.
(d) 22 January 2021: arraignment.
To continue reading
Request your trial