The Court of Appeal has dismissed Mark Bissett’s appeal against the severity of three-year prison sentences imposed for robbery and attempted robbery at two Dublin shops.
The terms were concurrent with each other but consecutive to a two-year sentence imposed in 2017 and activated shortly before the sentencing in these cases. The Court of Appeal said the sentences were not unduly severe and that consecutive sentences were appropriate, although the sentencing judge had been told they were legally required when the question was actually discretionary.
The attempted robbery took place at a Spar shop in Ranelagh on 1 October 2017. The judgment says Bissett entered with his face covered by a hoodie and waved a knife. A shop assistant moved away from the till; Bissett jumped the counter and tried, unsuccessfully, to open it before leaving. CCTV footage later identified him.
The robbery occurred at a pharmacy on Dunville Avenue on 26 October 2017. Bissett, with his face covered, took about €220 from the till while holding what the pharmacy owner believed was a fork in a threatening manner. The owner had been serving a family group. The court noted that Bissett later expressed regret at offending while children were present.
Both offences were committed while a two-year suspended sentence was in force. That sentence had been imposed in a separate case and was activated after the new offences came to light. The earlier case involved a threat to a charity worker operating a soup kitchen.
The appeal also challenged the decision not to suspend part of the sentences. The sentencing judge had considered suspending six months but rejected that option because Bissett had reoffended seriously soon after entering a good-behaviour bond.
The Court of Appeal considered whether to increase the aggregate sentence and suspend part of it, which would have left the same immediate custodial term but imposed a significant suspended term after release. It decided not to do so. The court dismissed the appeal and cautioned that practitioners should not assume it would always warn parties about its powers to increase sentences in severity appeals.