The Court of Appeal has dismissed Aaron McCarthy’s appeal against the sentences imposed for a robbery involving violence against a taxi driver, taking the taxi without authority and stealing a bicycle. It held that the five-year sentence for robbery was appropriate for the offence and the appellant, despite his co-accused receiving four years’ imprisonment.
The appeal concerned sentences imposed at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court on 29 July 2014: five years for robbery, two years for taking a vehicle without authority and two years for bicycle theft. The sentences were concurrent. The Court of Appeal judgment was delivered by Mr Justice Mahon on 19 October 2015. The appellant’s earlier appeal against his convictions had already been dismissed.
The judgment said that on 13 August 2013 the appellant hailed a taxi to Spencer Dock in Dublin. Two other passengers joined during the journey. The driver, identified as Mr Singh, was punched in the face, and his mobile phone, bank cards and cash were stolen. The taxi was also taken. The appellant and another man were arrested by gardaí after a foot chase.
The appellant argued that the sentencing judge had placed undue weight on the co-accused’s sentence, imposed a greater sentence for contesting the prosecution, failed to identify the offence’s gravity before considering mitigation, and did not sufficiently account for his age, circumstances, brain injury and prospects of rehabilitation. He also argued that having fewer previous convictions than his co-accused justified a shorter sentence. The judgment records that the co-accused had 120 previous convictions and received four years. The appellant, who was 18 at the time of the offences, had 56 previous convictions. He had suffered a significant brain injury in a road traffic accident in 2009, which the judgment said caused, among other things, mood swings.
The Court of Appeal said the robbery was particularly serious and involved considerable violence. It noted that some of the appellant’s previous convictions involved violence and were relevant to the offence, and that he committed a number of offences while on bail. It said the co-accused’s guilty plea provided an obvious reason for the difference in sentences: a guilty plea can warrant a lesser sentence because it spares a victim from giving evidence, saves court time and acknowledges wrongdoing. The court rejected the claim that the appellant had been penalised for contesting the prosecution.
Although the sentencing judgment did not specifically mention the appellant’s personal circumstances, brain injury or rehabilitation, the Court of Appeal said those matters had been presented before sentence. It was satisfied that five years was appropriate after allowing for the mitigating factors. The appeal was dismissed; the court did not alter the sentences.