The Court of Appeal has refused a Director of Public Prosecutions application to review as unduly lenient a 12-month sentence imposed for robbery, burglary and theft in Cork.
The court said the sentence was “very lenient” but within the range available to the sentencing judge, and declined to interfere. The appeal concerned the sentence imposed on 23 November 2017 by the Cork Circuit Criminal Court. The respondent had pleaded guilty to all three counts on 23 October 2017. The sentences ran concurrently, with the final four months suspended for 12 months, and were backdated to 20 June 2017.
The offences occurred on two dates. On 17 June 2017, the respondent entered Ladbrook’s bookmakers on Edward Walsh Road, Ballyphehane, and threatened cashier Jonathan Callan with a written message and further threats to set the premises on fire. Callan handed over €878 from the till. The money was not recovered.
On 27 May, the respondent took food items valued at €1.59 and €3.50 from O’Driscoll’s Superstore in Ballinlough without paying. He later entered a house at 4 Elderwood Avenue, Boreenmanna Road. The householder, Eoin McCormack, returned to find him in the kitchen holding a watch and two bottles of aftershave. The respondent left the items behind and departed. Fingerprints from the bottles matched the respondent’s samples.
The DPP argued the sentence substantially departed from sentencing norms and that the sentencing judge gave inadequate weight to the seriousness of the offences and the respondent’s previous convictions. The respondent’s submissions stressed his addiction and relapse, guilty pleas, limited planning and efforts at treatment. The sentencing judge had requested an addiction counsellor’s report, which the appeal judgment described as positive.
The appeal court noted the respondent’s 140 previous convictions, including convictions for robbery and burglary, while also recording that many arose from the same incidents and many were road traffic offences. It said the sentencing judge had carefully considered the respondent’s circumstances and rehabilitation prospects. Although the court considered the sentence unusually lenient, it found it fell within the judge’s discretion and refused the application.