The Court of Appeal has dismissed Clodagh Forde’s appeal against the severity of sentences imposed for an assault with intent to rob in Dublin in 2015 and a robbery in 2016.
The Dublin Circuit Criminal Court sentenced Forde on 19 January 2018 to three years’ imprisonment for the 2 July 2015 assault with intent to rob on Capel Street. For the 17 May 2016 robbery on Dame Street, it imposed five years, with the final two years suspended on conditions. The sentences were ordered to run consecutively.
At sentencing, Forde was already serving three and a half years following the partial activation of previously suspended sentences for four other robberies. The Court of Appeal noted that the 2015 assault charge had been brought only in December 2016. The sentencing judge had dealt with it on the same basis as the other offences from that summer, giving Forde the benefit of being sentenced as a child, although the delay meant she was an adult by the time it was dealt with.
The court recounted that, in the 2015 incident, Forde and a companion assaulted Ms Petroskova, who dropped a phone she did not recover. Ms Petroskova suffered a bleeding nose, dizziness and pulled hair. In the 2016 robbery, Mr Carthy was attacked by a group that included Forde. His wallet, money, cards, phone and a ring were taken. He suffered bruising and a fractured eye socket, as well as ongoing pain and psychological effects described to the sentencing court.
Forde’s appeal raised issues including an alleged error about Mr Carthy’s injuries, disparity with a younger co-accused who was dealt with under the juvenile liaison scheme, the sentencing approach, the weight given to her adult status for the 2016 offence, prosecution delay, and proportionality and totality. The Court of Appeal rejected those grounds. It said there was insufficient evidence to assess whether the co-accused had been treated unlawfully differently, and found the delay had caused no adverse consequence in sentencing.
The court accepted that a custodial element was appropriate and concluded that the cumulative sentence was not excessive, given the offending and Forde’s existing suspended sentences. It found no error of principle and held the sentence was within the trial judge’s discretion. The appeal was dismissed.