The Court of Appeal has ruled that the sentence imposed on Lee McDonnell for two robberies and a firearm offence was unduly lenient. It has not yet set replacement sentences: those, and whether any terms should be suspended or served concurrently or consecutively, are to be decided at a separate sentence hearing after further submissions.
McDonnell had pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery and carrying a firearm with criminal intent. Dublin Circuit Criminal Court sentenced him in November 2012 to six years for one robbery, with the final three years suspended subject to conditions. The other robbery and firearm counts were taken into consideration, leaving a three-year custodial term.
The appeal court said that approach involved an error of principle because no sentence was imposed for the firearm offence, despite the replica weapon being used to threaten two people and strike one. It said such a serious firearm offence should normally receive its own sentence, with the mandatory minimum term taken into account, unless exceptional reasons justify another approach.
The offences took place at a filling station shop in Ballyfermot on 21 January 2012. McDonnell and another hooded man tried to take money from a safe, but a time lock prevented them from opening it. McDonnell struck an employee in the face with the replica firearm and took the employee’s phone and a wallet containing about €300. As he left, he pointed the weapon at a member of the public who tried to photograph him. The judgment said the replica appeared real to those confronted with it.
The appeal court noted McDonnell’s early guilty plea and his agreement to provide a DNA sample. It said the evidence against him was compelling and that key items were recovered through police work, rather than his cooperation. He was 21 at the time and had 88 previous convictions, including robbery, assault and car hijacking; he had previously served a four-year prison sentence. The court also recorded his difficult background, including family and addiction problems.
The sentencing judge had considered the statutory five-year minimum for the firearm offence and concluded there were exceptional and specific circumstances allowing departure from it. The appeal court said a departure might be justified, but found that taking the firearm offence into consideration, rather than imposing a sentence for it, contributed to an unjustifiably low overall custodial term. It said the very serious violence and the number of previous convictions weighed against suspending a significant part of the eventual sentence.
The court’s ruling establishes that the original sentence was unduly lenient. The appropriate sentences for the firearm and robbery offences, and their terms and structure, remain for the separate hearing.