The Court of Appeal ruled that sentences imposed on Joseph O’Leary for three robberies and an assault were unduly lenient because the prison terms had been suspended in full. It allowed the Director of Public Prosecutions’ application to review the sentences, but did not order immediate imprisonment. Instead, it suspended the original terms for ten years on the same conditions set by the sentencing judge.
The offences took place between May and July 2011 in Wexford. On 5 May, O’Leary confronted a 65-year-old woman with an axe as she got into her car on Bride Street, took her purse and bank cards, and stole about €300. That incident resulted in convictions for assault and robbery.
On 1 June, he wore a balaclava and held a hatchet while demanding money from an employee at a bookmaker’s premises. He stole €1,570. On 20 July, he entered Boyles Sports Bookmakers, waved a hatchet at an employee and took about €1,570. Customers and staff were present. He pleaded guilty to all four charges arising from the incidents.
In November 2012, Wexford Circuit Criminal Court imposed a six-month prison term for assault and three ten-year terms for robbery. It suspended all the terms for three years, subject to conditions that included continuing treatment at Aiseiri, liaison with the Probation Service and possible restorative contact with the injured parties if they were willing.
The Court of Appeal said weapon-assisted robberies ordinarily attract custodial sentences and that the victims had been severely traumatised. It acknowledged the sentencing judge’s consideration of O’Leary’s guilty pleas, remorse, medical history, positive probation report, treatment and rehabilitation. The appeal court nevertheless concluded that suspending every prison term was unduly lenient.
By the appeal hearing, O’Leary had served two and a half years of the three-year suspension without further trouble and was approaching the final year of a software development degree. The court said sending him to prison at that stage would be counterproductive and could undo rehabilitation. It therefore retained the prison terms imposed in 2012 but suspended them for ten years on the same conditions. The judgment does not state whether those conditions were later varied or how compliance would be monitored.