The Court of Appeal has dismissed John Kinsella’s appeal against a six-year sentence for robbing an Aldi supermarket in Gorey, Co Wexford, at knifepoint.
The court, in an ex tempore judgment delivered on 5 December 2016, found no error of principle in the sentencing decision. Kinsella’s sentence was six years’ imprisonment, with the final year suspended subject to a bond to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for two years after his release. The appeal was dismissed, leaving that sentence in place.
Kinsella had pleaded guilty at Wexford Circuit Criminal Court on 6 February 2015 to robbery under section 14 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001. He was sentenced on 21 May 2015.
The Court of Appeal heard that on 17 May 2013 he entered the supermarket with a kitchen knife, his face covered by a scarf and a hooded top over his head. He forced one cashier to open a till, then threatened a second cashier with the knife when she struggled to open another. He left with money from the first till. Gardaí pursued and arrested him, and he made full admissions in interview. The judgment records that €955 was stolen and €925 was found in his possession.
The court described the robbery as particularly serious, citing the large bladed knife and aggressive threats made at close range. It also noted Kinsella’s record of 14 previous convictions over about 17 years, including three previous robbery convictions and several knife-related offences. The judgment said the sentencing judge had considered mitigating circumstances, including the guilty plea, remorse and co-operation with the Probation Service, although the judge had not clearly identified the discount allowed for the plea.
The appeal argued that too much weight had been given to aggravating factors and too little to mitigation, including rehabilitation and Kinsella’s personal circumstances. The Court of Appeal considered that the five-year net custodial term represented a possible one-third discount from an appropriate headline sentence. It concluded that no error of principle had been shown and dismissed the appeal.