The Court of Appeal has dismissed Jonathan Duffy’s appeal against the severity of sentences imposed for a robbery at Blackrock post office and related offences, finding no error in principle by the sentencing judge.
The appeal concerned concurrent sentences of seven years’ imprisonment for robbery and unlawful seizure of a vehicle, and six years for possession of an imitation firearm and attempted unlawful seizure of another vehicle. The sentences were imposed by the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court on 26 May 2014 and backdated to 1 September 2013.
The court heard that the robbery took place at the Frascatti Shopping Centre post office on 16 April 2013. The robber, carrying what appeared to be a firearm, held a female customer and demanded money. After a staff member placed about €3,000 on the counter, he put it in a bag and fled.
The judgment recounted that, during his escape, Duffy entered a woman’s car and told her to drive. He threatened to kill her and tried to take control of the vehicle, which stalled in traffic. Gardaí surrounded the car and had difficulty removing him. The woman later described the incident in a victim impact statement as one of the most frightening and traumatic of her life. The court also heard of an earlier attempt to seize another woman’s car.
After his arrest, Duffy made full admissions, saying he had bought a toy gun for €2 and decided to commit the robbery because he was spending €50 a day on tablets. The judgment recorded that he had 35 previous convictions, including 10 robbery convictions dating from 2009, and that this robbery occurred 11 days after his release from custody on temporary release.
His appeal counsel argued that the sentencing judge had not given sufficient weight to his prospects of reform and rehabilitation, and submitted that part of the sentence should have been suspended. The Court of Appeal said it could intervene only where an error in principle took the sentence outside the permissible range. Given the seriousness of the offence and Duffy’s relevant record, it found no such error and dismissed the appeal.