The Court of Appeal has quashed a sentence imposed on Michael Cummins for attempted robbery and replaced it with two and a half years’ imprisonment, after finding the original sentence was unduly lenient.
The Director of Public Prosecutions brought the appeal under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993, challenging the sentence imposed by Dundalk Circuit Criminal Court. Cummins had pleaded guilty and received 12 months’ imprisonment, with the final five months suspended on terms.
The case arose from an incident on Clanbrassil Street, Dundalk, shortly after midnight on 4 March 2019. The judgment records that a man depositing money at an ATM was approached by Cummins and two other people. Cummins punched him from behind and demanded money. The group threatened him when he said he had none, including threats of serious violence if he did not return to the ATM. Gardaí arrived after seeing events on a town camera.
In its appeal, the Director argued that the sentencing judge gave too much weight to mitigation and insufficient weight to aggravating circumstances, including the group attack, threats and Cummins’s previous convictions. The Director also argued that there was not enough evidence to support rehabilitation as a basis for suspending part of the sentence. Cummins’s counsel relied on his early guilty plea, apology and reported steps towards recovery. No probation report was provided; the judgment says Cummins had sought to have the case proceed without one.
The Court of Appeal said there were many aggravating features. It noted that Cummins had seven previous convictions, including two involving possession of weapons and a prior false-imprisonment conviction for which he received an eight-year sentence, with the final four years suspended. The court also said the attempted robbery was committed while he was on temporary release. The court accepted that the guilty plea came at a very early stage, but said there was no material before the sentencing judge to support the claim that Cummins had been drug-free for six weeks or to establish a basis for further sentence reduction or suspension.
The court held that the original sentence was significantly outside the norm and that there was no evidential basis for suspending five months. It quashed the sentence and imposed two and a half years’ imprisonment instead. The court identified a four-year headline sentence, then reduced it by 18 months for mitigation and the disappointment factor arising because Cummins had been at large for about six months. The judgment does not set out the terms of the original suspended portion.