The Court of Appeal has dismissed Gavin Carabini’s appeal against the severity of his sentence for an armed robbery at a Galway jeweller’s shop in November 2008. The court held that the sentencing judge’s approach disclosed no error and upheld the 10-year prison term, with the final 18 months suspended for five years after release, subject to good behaviour.
Carabini pleaded guilty on 4 June 2013 to the robbery. The sentence was backdated to 23 January 2012, and the sentencing judge also ordered 12 months of post-release supervision. The appeal court’s judgment was delivered on 10 July 2015.
The sentencing judge had identified 14 years’ imprisonment as the starting point for the offence’s seriousness, then reduced the sentence to 10 years after considering aggravating and mitigating factors. The Court of Appeal said the aggravating circumstances entitled the judge to use that starting point.
The robbery took place on 28 November 2008 at Hartmans Jewellers on William Street. Three masked men entered with a handgun and two iron bars, threatened staff and a customer, and took 28 Rolex and 18 Cartier watches valued at €108,887. One staff member was kicked and stepped on; the customer suffered severe shock and respiratory problems. The men left in a car driven by a fourth person, and the getaway involved collisions and damage to other vehicles.
Carabini argued that his sentence was disproportionate, that his role had not been properly distinguished from those of his co-accused, and that he was not the organiser or the person carrying the gun. He also challenged remarks by a prosecuting garda linking him to an organised crime group based in parts of Dublin, saying they had unfairly prejudiced the sentencing judge. The prosecution argued that the judge had not accepted those remarks and had made no error in principle.
The appeal court said it paid no attention to the gang allegation. It concluded that Carabini’s not being the leader or gun carrier did not warrant mitigation, and that he had been an integral participant throughout the offence. The court noted that the sentencing judge had considered his guilty plea, previous convictions, difficult background, prison reports and steps toward rehabilitation. It dismissed the appeal.