The Court of Appeal has dismissed Matthew Connick’s appeal against the severity of sentences imposed for six offences, finding the net custodial term of four years was not unduly harsh.
Connick had pleaded guilty and was convicted at Wexford Circuit Criminal Court on 19 July 2016. The offences included two attempted robberies, theft, possession of an article intended to cause injury or intimidation, possession of a syringe and criminal damage. He was sentenced on 24 November 2016.
For each attempted robbery, the sentencing judge imposed six years’ imprisonment, with the final two years suspended for five years on conditions. A theft count was taken into consideration. The judge imposed three-year terms for possession of an article and possession of a syringe, and six months for criminal damage. All sentences were concurrent, running from 6 June 2016.
The Court of Appeal said the incidents involved an attempted robbery at a Mace supermarket in Ferns on 19 January 2016, where Connick wore a balaclava, carried a knife and pointed it at a staff member while demanding money. He left when challenged, taking a chocolate bar. On 23 January, he attempted to rob Davitts Music Store in Ferns while holding part of a syringe up to a staff member’s face and demanding money. He left empty-handed after the owner confronted him. On 22 January, he smashed a window at the parochial house in Ferns with a rock, causing €200 worth of damage.
No one was physically injured, but the court said the first two incidents were particularly traumatic for several people. It also noted Connick’s 48 previous convictions, including one for possessing a knife, as well as his guilty plea, admissions, remorse, cooperation with Gardaí and history of addiction.
The appeal challenged the credit given for those mitigating factors, the weight attached to previous convictions, the assessment of cooperation and the absence of an identified starting point before mitigation. The Court of Appeal observed that the sentencing judge had not explained how he arrived at the six-year term before suspending two years. It said that explanation would have helped those affected understand the sentence, but the failure to nominate a headline sentence did not establish a ground of appeal.
Assessing the sentences actually imposed, the court said a net four-year term for the offences as a whole was reasonable and proportionate. It dismissed the appeal.