The Court of Appeal reduced Romeo Stanescu’s sentence for stealing €3,500 from a Kilkenny bar, finding that the sentencing judge had wrongly placed the burglary in the mid-range of seriousness. It set a new sentence of two years’ imprisonment, with no part suspended.
Stanescu had pleaded guilty to burglary at the Playwright bar in Kilkenny City. The offence took place on 11 June 2019. The court heard that CCTV showed a man entering a private staff office, taking bundles of banknotes and trying unsuccessfully to open a safe and locked cabinets. The money was not recovered. Gardaí later identified Stanescu from the footage; he admitted his involvement after his arrest.
At sentencing, the judge nominated a five-year headline sentence, citing the amount taken and what he considered to be some premeditation. The judge reduced it to three years to reflect mitigating factors, including Stanescu’s early guilty plea, cooperation, lack of previous convictions and apology. The sentence was backdated to 9 July 2019. The judge declined to suspend any part, referring to the absence of a clear basis for rehabilitation and Stanescu’s limited ties to Ireland.
Stanescu appealed the sentence’s severity. He argued that the evidence did not support a finding of significant planning and that the offence should not have been placed in the mid-range. He also argued that the judge had wrongly ruled out a suspended sentence. The Director of Public Prosecutions accepted that the sentence was severe but argued it was not excessive, pointing to the money taken, the private staff area and the encounter with the bar manager.
The Court of Appeal held that the burglary was not particularly aggravated. It ruled that the commercial nature of the premises and the fact the burglary happened during daylight were not aggravating in themselves. The encounter with the manager took place in an area open to the public, the court said, and was not a confrontation with an occupier in the private staff area. The evidence showed some element of premeditation, but not the significant planning referred to in earlier case law. The €3,500 loss was material, but those two factors together did not justify placing the offence in the mid-range.
The court found no error in the sentencing judge’s decision not to suspend part of the sentence. It quashed the original sentence and assessed the offence in the lower third of the available custodial range. It set a headline sentence of three years and six months, reduced by 18 months for mitigation, resulting in a two-year prison sentence.