The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against a six-year sentence for robbing a Galway hair salon, ruling that the sentence was correct despite an error in the sentencing judge’s approach.
The appellant had pleaded guilty to robbery and was sentenced by Galway Circuit Criminal Court in May 2017. The six-year term was to begin after a burglary sentence he was already serving. The final 12 months were suspended for three years on conditions, leaving five years to serve for the robbery.
The court heard that on the morning of 15 February 2017, the appellant took between €40 and €80 from a salon cash box. He had gone behind the counter and was taking the money when the salon owner disturbed him. A struggle followed, and the owner suffered a broken finger and psychological injuries. She was out of work for six weeks, suffered financial loss and continued to experience psychological effects. The money was not recovered.
The appellant challenged the sentencing judge’s view that the robbery was premeditated, the nine-year headline sentence used as the starting point, and the reduction allowed for mitigation. The judge had taken account of the guilty plea, early admissions, apology and remorse before imposing the six-year sentence.
The appeal court said the evidence supported some element of premeditation, but the offence would be serious whether the theft was planned or opportunistic. It placed the robbery well within the mid-range of gravity, while finding that a nine-year starting point was too high. The court said a starting point of about seven and a half years would have been more appropriate.
However, the court said it would not interfere unless the error led to an incorrect final sentence. It considered the appellant’s guilty plea, admissions, remorse and personal and family circumstances, alongside his record of more than 100 previous convictions, including four for robbery and 20 for burglary. He had committed the offence while on bail for burglary.
The court concluded that a one-third reduction from the more appropriate starting point would have been sufficient, taking account of mitigation, the consecutive sentence and the limited rehabilitation incentive justified by the record. It upheld the sentence and dismissed the appeal.