The Court of Appeal has dismissed a Director of Public Prosecutions challenge to the full suspension of sentences imposed on Michael Power for robbery and burglary, ruling that the decision was not unduly lenient in the circumstances.
The appeal concerned sentences imposed by the Trim Circuit Criminal Court on 27 February 2023: three years for robbery and three and a half years for burglary, to run consecutively. Both were suspended in full for seven years, with two years of probation supervision and conditions including victim awareness work and engagement with addiction supports.
The robbery took place at a Circle K garage on the Navan Road in Trim on 22 March 2020. The court heard that two people entered with their faces covered. Power approached the cash desk carrying the triangular end of a car jack or a wheel brace, demanded money and took cash and cigarettes. The total loss was about €200. A third person took alcohol while another remained with the car. Power initially denied involvement in interview, then admitted his role and said the robbery was spontaneous and connected to drug debts. Two employees described lasting fear and anxiety in victim impact reports.
The burglary occurred on 9 June 2020 at a B&B-style premises on Watergate Street, Navan, while Power was on bail for the robbery. Four men forced their way inside looking for someone who was not there. A resident, identified as Mr M in the judgment, was punched and suffered a bleeding and swollen lip. He later reported feeling scared and irritated by unusual sounds and loud bangs.
The sentencing judge set headline sentences of six years for robbery and seven years for burglary, then reduced them for guilty pleas and mitigation. The DPP did not challenge those headline terms or the reductions, but argued that suspending both sentences in full gave excessive credit for mitigation and undermined the effect of consecutive sentences.
The Court of Appeal said full suspension was an unusual step given the seriousness of the offences. It also noted that Power had spent five months in custody awaiting sentence and completed a residential drug treatment programme at Coolmine, followed by aftercare. The court accepted that the sentencing judge had carefully considered the reports and his progress, and was entitled to conclude that rehabilitation should predominate in this exceptional case.
The court said the suspension was lenient but rational and grounded in the evidence. It dismissed the DPP’s appeal.