The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against a four-year prison sentence imposed on Viorel Salageanu for stealing a tray of rings from a jeweller in Dundalk. It concluded that although the sentencing judge had placed the offence in too high a gravity range, the sentence itself was within the acceptable range.
Salageanu had pleaded guilty in Dundalk Circuit Criminal Court on 16 October 2015 to theft under the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001. His sentence was four years from 18 September 2015, with credit for four months in pre-trial custody in Ireland and eight days held in Romania before his return under a European Arrest Warrant.
The Court of Appeal heard that Salageanu and another man entered Diamond Jewellers at Marshes Shopping Centre on 19 October 2011. While the shop assistant showed the other man jewellery from an unlocked display cabinet, CCTV showed Salageanu taking a tray of 10 rings and concealing it in his jacket. The tray was valued at €12,723 and was never recovered. Salageanu admitted in interview that he was the person shown in the footage, but said the rings had been lost on the road and suggested the other man had instigated the theft.
The sentencing judge treated the offence as falling in the “higher range” of seriousness, citing planning, the commercial setting, the method used to distract the assistant, prior convictions and the loss. Salageanu’s appeal argued that this assessment was wrong and that the four-year sentence was excessive. At the appeal hearing, counsel pursued only that ground.
The Court of Appeal said the sentencing judge had not stated a starting sentence or the precise allowance for mitigation. It explained that best practice is to identify a headline sentence based on the offence’s seriousness, then account for mitigation. The court assessed this offence as within the middle range, marginally above its midpoint, rather than the higher range.
It estimated that a suitable headline sentence would have been about 60 to 66 months and that a 25% reduction for mitigation would produce a sentence of roughly 45 to 49½ months. The four-year term was 48 months. The court found no error of principle and dismissed the appeal, leaving the sentence in place.