The Court of Appeal has dismissed Eddie Barnaville’s appeal against the severity of his sentences for two robberies in Thurles, leaving in place consecutive five-year terms with the final four years suspended.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Edwards on 1 November 2018, said the sentencing judge had correctly assessed the seriousness of the offences and adequately accounted for mitigation. The appeal court found no error of principle and no basis to interfere with the sentence.
The robberies happened within 24 hours in January 2016. In the first, Barnaville took a mobile phone and about €35 from Kevin Barry while Barry was on the ground outside a pub on Kickham Street. Barry had been knocked down by a third party before Barnaville arrived. CCTV evidence showed Barnaville kicking him repeatedly.
In the second incident, outside Supermac’s Restaurant, Barnaville grappled with Aldis Groakes, knocked him down and kicked him. The court heard that Barnaville took belongings from Groakes while he was unconscious, then kicked him again. Barnaville admitted both robberies during Garda interviews after being shown CCTV footage and pleaded guilty to both counts.
The sentencing judge imposed five years for each robbery, to run consecutively, and suspended the final four years of the ten-year total. Conditions included a €100 bond, keeping the peace and being of good behaviour, abstaining from alcohol and illicit drugs for four years after release, and engaging with the Probation Service for two years.
On appeal, Barnaville argued that the offences had been placed too high on the seriousness scale and that the sentencing judge had given insufficient weight to his guilty pleas, remorse, youth, substance misuse and rehabilitation efforts. The appeal court agreed that the robberies were not at the top end of the range, despite the sentencing judge’s description, but said they were well into the mid-range. It considered the suspended portion an adequate, even generous, reduction for mitigation.
The court said the consecutive terms were within the trial judge’s discretion and were not the subject of a specific appeal complaint. It concluded that a substantial custodial sentence was unavoidable and that the sentencing judge’s decision not to go further in encouraging rehabilitation was a legitimate exercise of discretion.