Sentences for arsonists who doused car in fuel and rammed it into building too low, State argues

BreakingNews.ie

28-04-2025

The Director of Public prosecutions has argued that three men received unduly lenient sentences after a 'targeted' and 'pre-meditated' arson attack in which a car was doused in fuel and rammed into a tanning salon, causing an enormous fire while families slept in the apartments overhead.
'It's difficult to conceive of a more serious arson offence,' said Niall Storan BL, for the DPP, as he sought a review of the sentences imposed on Keith McCormack Smith (24), Jason Ryle (25) and PJ Lyons (21) at the Court of Appeal on Monday.
Advertisement
The barrister described the incident as 'the apex of a spree of serious offending which occurred over several days'. All of the respondents were on bail at the time, he said.
The court viewed video footage of the incident, in which a Toyota car can be seen reversing several times at speed into the building, which quickly becomes engulfed in flames.
The court heard more than a quarter of a million euros worth of damage was caused to the premises.
McCormack Smith – also known as Keith McCormick and Keith McCormick-Smith - of Riverview, Church Road, Mulhuddart, Dublin 15 pleaded guilty to arson at Tip Top Tanning Studio, Tullow Street, Carlow on May 17th, 2022, and arson to a Toyota car on the same date and at the same location.
Advertisement
He also pleaded guilty to various other charges including unlawful use of a motor vehicle, unlawful carriage in a motor vehicle and theft between May 1st and May 17th, 2022.
Judge Eugene O'Kelly sentenced McCormack Smith to six years with the final two years suspended at Carlow Circuit Court on July 31st, 2024.
Jason Ryle of Raithin, Mullingar, Westmeath and PJ Lyons of Cedarbrook Walk, Ballyfermot, Dublin 10, also pleaded guilty to arson arising out of the same incident.
Ryle and Lyons further pleaded guilty to a number of other charges including unlawful use of a motor vehicle, attempted theft and theft on various dates in May 2022.
Advertisement
Ryle was sentenced to five and a half years imprisonment with the final two years suspended while Lyons was also handed a sentence of five and a half years with the final two years suspended for a period of two years and three months.
At the time of sentencing, McCormack Smith had 24 previous convictions including offences under the Road Traffic Act, burglary, theft and criminal damage.
In February 2024, McCormack Smith was sentenced to three years and two months with the final 12 months suspended for his role in a series of offences on January 23rd, 2022, during which a man died. The sentence was increased to five years on appeal.
Ryle had 29 previous convictions for offences including robbery and misuse of drugs while Lyons had 17 for offences including endangerment and obstruction.
Advertisement
The incident in Carlow occurred shortly before 5am on May 17th, 2022, when a stolen Toyota Avensis was rammed into a building on Tullow Street in Carlow and set alight causing the building to catch fire.
Mr Storan said the ground floor of the building operated as a tanning salon during the day and the upper levels were residential apartments. He said McCormack Smith was driving the Toyota car while PJ Lyons recorded what was happening on his phone and Ryle was also present.
Ryle had a bottle containing accelerant in his hand which he then poured onto the car while McCormack Smith got out and the three fled the scene.
A garda investigation revealed that multiple vehicles had been stolen in different locations and were involved in the commission of various offences which ultimately led to the arson at the tanning salon.
Advertisement
The offenders were ultimately identified through social media content from a TikTok account.
Appealing the leniency of the sentences imposed on the three men, Mr Storan said it was 'difficult to conceive of a more serious arson offence' than this one which was both 'targeted' and 'pre-meditated' to cause 'an enormous fire'.
He argued the headline sentence of eight years was too low and the sentences imposed did not adequately reflect the gravity of the offence. The lawyer suggested the judge had misplaced the offending at the mid-range on the scale of gravity.
Mr Storan also said insufficient weight was given to the many aggravating factors including the fact that the apartments over the premises were occupied by families who were sleeping at the time, the pre-meditation involved, the use of an accelerant and the fact that the respondents were on bail.
He said there was little mitigation available bar the defendants' pleas of guilty.
Kathleen Leader SC, for McCormack Smith, argued the sentencing judge had exercised his discretion correctly when imposing sentence and said the headline sentence was calculated having regard to the aggravating factor of the offences being committed at different times.
She said the prosecuting garda had agreed during cross examination that men were acting on the word of someone else to 'clear a drug debt' by carrying out this crime.
Ms Leader said there was no evidence they were motivated by personal revenge or anything of that nature. She suggested this took them 'out of the very high range and put them in the mid-range' of five to ten years.
Dara Foynes SC, for Ryle, said her client had made full admissions when interviewed by gardaí. She said she would associate herself with Ms Leader's comments in relation to the judge assessing the case as being in the upper end of the mid-range for arson.
'We feel that was an appropriate ranking of the sentence,' she said. 'They were young men their lives have been blighted by drugs and drugs were behind this. They were told by a person higher up the chain that they had to do this.'
Damien Colgan SC, representing Lyons, also argued there had been no error and the sentence imposed was correct. He said his client had entered an early plea of guilty and had identified himself from the CCTV footage and had also identified himself from footage in the car posted on TikTok.
Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy said the court would reserve judgement and deliver its decision at a later date.