The Court of Appeal has replaced a fully suspended sentence imposed on Patrick Whelan for robbery and assault causing harm with a four-year sentence, suspending the final two years and six months on the original conditions.
The appeal was brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993, which allows review of a sentence alleged to be unduly lenient. In a judgment delivered on 22 June 2017, the court held that suspending the whole sentence was an error of principle because it did not give sufficient weight to the violence and the harm to the victim. It resentenced Whelan; the court did not overturn his guilty pleas or convictions.
The offences took place at about 5pm on 27 July 2015, while the victim was serving customers in a Blanchardstown shop. The judgment says Whelan entered armed with a meat cleaver and a saw blade, demanded that the till be opened and struck the victim on the head before he could respond. He then picked up a sweeping brush, threatened the victim and took €600. The victim received stitches, was out of work for three weeks and reported recurring nightmares and difficulty sleeping. The judgment also records lost earnings and medical expenses.
Whelan pleaded guilty to robbery at the first Circuit Court mention on 24 June 2016, and later pleaded guilty to assault causing harm and an offence under section 112 of the Road Traffic Act. The robbery and assault sentences imposed on 24 October 2016 were three years and two years respectively, to run concurrently; the road traffic offence was taken into account. The entire term was suspended for four years, subject to good behaviour, probation supervision, programmes and a €4,000 payment to the victim. Two knife-possession counts ended in nolle prosequi.
The DPP argued that the sentencing judge gave too little weight to the violence and the victim’s experience, and too much weight to mitigation, including Whelan’s progress. The respondent argued that the sentence was lenient but did not amount to the substantial departure required for an appeal to succeed.
The Court of Appeal accepted that the respondent’s early plea, lack of previous convictions, remorse and acceptance of responsibility deserved credit. It said the DPP had accepted that four years would have been appropriate for the robbery without a plea. Taking the mitigating factors into account, the court imposed four years’ imprisonment, suspending the final two years and six months on the same conditions as before.