The Court of Appeal has dismissed a Director of Public Prosecutions appeal against a sentence for an attempted robbery at a Tallaght service station, finding that the lenient sentence did not meet the legal threshold for intervention.
Mark O’Reilly pleaded guilty to attempted robbery and possessing an imitation firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence. The Circuit Court sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment, with the final 18 months suspended for five years. The sentence ran from 14 March 2013, when he entered custody.
The appeal concerned whether that sentence was unduly lenient under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993. The firearms offence carried a presumptive minimum of five years, subject to an exception where exceptional and specific circumstances made that minimum unjust. The Court of Appeal stressed that it could intervene only for a substantial departure from the appropriate sentence.
The attempted robbery took place at about 3am on 11 March 2012 at a service station in Fortunestown, Tallaght. The judgment says O’Reilly pointed a realistic imitation handgun at another person’s head and demanded money. The attendant, Rizman Ali, pressed an emergency button while delaying him; no money was handed over. When Gardaí arrived, O’Reilly pointed the imitation firearm at two of them before running and being arrested.
The appeal court described the use of the weapon and its being pointed at Gardaí as serious aggravating factors. It also noted O’Reilly’s early guilty plea, lack of material assistance to the investigation, and absence of previous convictions for firearms or specified state-security offences. He had 27 previous convictions, including five for robbery, and was described as having a chronic drug addiction.
The Circuit Court judge had treated the addiction as a significant mitigating circumstance and structured the suspended term to encourage treatment and compliance with probation conditions. The Court of Appeal accepted that, in this case, addressing the addiction could serve the public interest by reducing the likelihood of further offending. It noted that the suspended portion had already been reactivated after the Probation Service applied on the ground that O’Reilly had not met the conditions.
The Court of Appeal said the sentence was undoubtedly lenient, but concluded the Circuit Court had substantial grounds for its approach. It dismissed the DPP’s appeal, leaving the sentence undisturbed.