The Court of Appeal has dismissed Jamie O’Donovan’s appeal against the sentence imposed for a phone robbery and an attempted phone robbery in Cork, finding that the sentence was not excessive and that the sentencing judge made no error of principle.
O’Donovan was convicted at Cork Circuit Court on 4 November 2014 of robbing a mobile phone from Mehdi Ziaina on North Main Street shortly after midnight on 28 April 2014. The judgment says Ziaina was punched, kneed and kicked by O’Donovan and his brother during the robbery.
Shortly afterwards, O’Donovan attempted to take a phone from a man at Pope’s Quay. The man was pushed and kicked as he tried to keep hold of it. O’Donovan was arrested soon after and admitted both offences. He later pleaded guilty to them at Cork Circuit Criminal Court in November 2014.
The sentencing judge imposed three years’ imprisonment for robbery, with the final 12 months suspended subject to Probation Service supervision. That sentence was to run consecutively to a nine-month sentence for another offence, which had a release date of 21 February 2015. An 18-month sentence for attempted robbery was ordered to run concurrently.
O’Donovan appealed on the grounds that the sentence was disproportionate, that his personal circumstances had not been properly considered and that insufficient weight was given to his age: he was 18 when sentenced. In mitigation, his counsel said he had done well at school, sat his Leaving Certificate and been a successful sportsman. Counsel said alcohol and drugs had contributed to him going off the rails in the preceding year, and that he was doing well in prison and taking part in rehabilitation programmes. Counsel accepted that imprisonment was likely and sought supervision to support reintegration after release; the judge included supervision in the suspended portion of the sentence.
The Court of Appeal said the sentencing judge could not be faulted for assessing the gravity of the robbery at three years’ imprisonment. It found the judge was aware of O’Donovan’s age. Although the appeal court said youth should not be treated as an aggravating factor as a matter of law, it considered the judge’s post-sentence remark in the context of this case and said it did not establish an error in principle.
The court also noted that rehabilitation was reflected in the suspended portion and that the guilty plea had been acknowledged. It concluded the totality principle was properly respected and dismissed the appeal against sentence.