Judgment: 2020-11-26 · Court archive

Court cuts Clonmel robbery sentence from eight years in custody to five

Court of Appeal ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Ian O’Sullivan (Appellant)
  • Thomas Lonergan
What

Court cuts Clonmel robbery sentence from eight years in custody to five

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Thomas Street
  • Tipperary Circuit Criminal Court
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The Court of Appeal held that the 14-year starting point was disproportionate. It accepted that the robbery was vicious, unprovoked and aggravated by the three-on-one attack, actual violence and deliberate targeting of the victim’s head. However, there was no weapon, sophisticated planning, home invasion, prolonged detention or particularly high-value property loss.

The Court of Appeal has reduced Ian O’Sullivan’s effective prison sentence for a violent late-night robbery in Clonmel from eight years to five years.

O’Sullivan pleaded guilty to robbery after Thomas Lonergan was attacked while walking home along Thomas Street at about 2am on 26 February 2017. Three men approached him and demanded money. When he refused, he was punched, chased and then kicked and punched while on the ground.

Mr Lonergan handed over his phone and money, but the violence continued. The judgment records that O’Sullivan laughed as he kicked him and had to be pulled away by another assailant.

Mr Lonergan suffered facial injuries, spent three days in hospital and was unable to work for eight weeks. In his victim impact statement, he described lasting fear, nightmares, depression and financial losses. He and his family also moved from their home because of fears of another attack.

Tipperary Circuit Criminal Court originally selected a 14-year headline sentence. After mitigation, O’Sullivan received 12 years with the final four suspended, producing eight years to serve.

The Court of Appeal held that the 14-year starting point was disproportionate. It accepted that the robbery was vicious, unprovoked and aggravated by the three-on-one attack, actual violence and deliberate targeting of the victim’s head. However, there was no weapon, sophisticated planning, home invasion, prolonged detention or particularly high-value property loss.

The court also held that failure to repay the victim should not have been treated as an aggravating factor. Repayment could have counted as mitigation, but its absence did not make the offence worse.

On resentencing, the court set an eight-year headline term, reduced it by two years for mitigation and suspended a further year to encourage rehabilitation. The resulting sentence was six years with one suspended, leaving five years to serve. A €5,000 compensation order was retained.

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