The Court of Appeal has dismissed Martin Hanley’s appeal against the severity of his sentence for robbery, finding that the three years he must serve could not be considered excessively severe or an error in principle.
The sentence, imposed by Dublin Circuit Criminal Court on 29 March 2019, was five years’ imprisonment with the final two years suspended. A charge of assault causing harm was taken into consideration at sentencing. The appeal judgment was delivered on 14 November 2019 by Birmingham P., with the court comprising the President, McCarthy J. and Kennedy J.
The case concerned an attack on 23 November 2017. The injured party, a 65-year-old man, had collected winnings from a betting shop on Parnell Street and was walking towards Mountjoy Square when he was attacked at Gardiner Lane. The court said he was punched, knocked down and threatened with a knife. Hanley restrained him by standing on his leg during the robbery.
The man suffered a broken leg requiring surgery, followed by complications and physiotherapy. He also sustained a broken tooth and facial cuts, grazes and bruises. About €400 was stolen. The court said it was accepted that Hanley had not set out to break the man’s leg. Hanley was identified from CCTV and pleaded guilty at the first mention date.
At sentencing, the trial judge set a headline sentence of eight years, reduced it by three years to five years’ imprisonment in light of mitigating factors, then suspended the final two years because of Hanley’s serious health problems. He was 54 at the time of the sentence hearing and had lung cancer; his treatment had included chemotherapy and removal of a lung. The judgment recorded 22 previous convictions, including six for theft. All had been dealt with summarily and none involved violence. Hanley brought €2,000 to court to offer to the injured party, who was not interested in the offer.
Hanley argued on appeal that the eight-year headline sentence was too high and that the judge had not sufficiently accounted for his personal circumstances. The Court of Appeal said the headline sentence could be regarded as at the higher end of the available range. However, it said the ultimate sentence of three years to be served was not severe, given the violence and injuries. The court dismissed the appeal.