Judgment: 2021-10-12 · Court archive

Court of Appeal upholds Trevor Ormond's sentence for Dublin quays phone robbery

Court of Appeal ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Trevor Ormond (Appellant)
What

Court of Appeal upholds Trevor Ormond's sentence for Dublin quays phone robbery

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • O'Connell Street
  • Londis Shop
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The Court of Appeal rejected both arguments. It held that the robbery was properly placed at the centre of the mid-range and that the sentencing judge had adequately reflected his guilty plea, personal circumstances and past capacity for rehabilitation. The appeal was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal has upheld Trevor Ormond's sentence for a late-night robbery on the Dublin quays in which a man's phone was taken after a struggle and Ormond shouted at an accomplice to stab him.

The robbery happened at about 12.30am on 5 October 2018. The victim was walking with a friend and had taken out his phone to book a taxi when Ormond and another man approached. Ormond grabbed the phone and a struggle followed, with both men falling to the ground while holding it.

During the struggle, Ormond shouted to his accomplice, "stab him Paddy stab him". The victim believed the other man had a knife. Ormond ultimately took the phone and the pair ran towards O'Connell Street. CCTV later placed Ormond outside the Londis shop on O'Connell Street.

The phone was never recovered. The victim told the sentencing court that the incident caused financial loss and psychological distress and left him more wary about using his phone in public.

Ormond pleaded guilty on his trial date in December 2019. He had 30 previous convictions, most involving road traffic matters, and had been on station bail for a drugs offence when the robbery was committed.

The sentencing judge identified a seven-and-a-half-year headline sentence before mitigation. She reduced that to six and a half years and then suspended the final 18 months, leaving five years to be served in custody. Probation supervision was imposed after release.

On appeal, Ormond argued that the starting point was too high and that insufficient weight had been given to a previous ten-year period without significant offending and to his ability to live productively when free from addiction.

The Court of Appeal rejected both arguments. It held that the robbery was properly placed at the centre of the mid-range and that the sentencing judge had adequately reflected his guilty plea, personal circumstances and past capacity for rehabilitation. The appeal was dismissed.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review