The Court of Appeal reduced a man’s sentence for handling stolen mobile phones from four years to three years’ imprisonment, after finding that the six-year headline sentence imposed at trial was excessive. It declined to suspend any part of the re-sentenced term.
The appellant had pleaded guilty to one count of handling stolen property, namely mobile phones taken from a shop in Bandon, County Cork. On 22 April 2020, the Court of Appeal quashed the four-year sentence imposed by the Cork Circuit Criminal Court and re-sentenced him. It set a headline sentence of four and a half years, then applied an 18-month reduction for mitigation, leaving three years’ imprisonment.
The phones were stolen during a burglary at RepairIT.ie in Bandon in September 2018. Gardaí later found 67 phones concealed at the appellant’s home in Cork. The court said phones stolen from the shop were among those recovered and had been returned to the owner. The judgment noted a discrepancy in the stated value: the indictment gave €13,143.90, while evidence referred to €17,378.90. The Court of Appeal said it was not material to the appeal.
The appeal court held that the trial judge had erred in setting the headline sentence at six years. It considered the relevant circumstances, including the appellant’s previous convictions for dishonesty and the profit motive, as well as the recovery of the stolen property in saleable condition and the eight-year period since his last conviction. It said a four-and-a-half-year headline sentence was more appropriate.
The court found no error in the trial judge’s assessment of mitigation. It upheld the one-third reduction for the guilty plea and other available mitigation, and agreed that the appellant’s cooperation had been limited. It also found no error in the decision to impose immediate custody, considering the family circumstances and the appellant’s status as a foreign national.
The court rejected the request to suspend part of the sentence. It said there was no evidence of an underlying problem requiring intervention through a suspended sentence, and noted that the appellant had received earlier chances but had reoffended. The court emphasised that the appellant was being sentenced for handling stolen property, not for the burglary itself.