The Court of Appeal has replaced a sentence imposed on a young man who pleaded guilty to a Limerick robbery, suspending the entire balance of his six-year sentence from 14 November 2017.
The court heard that the appellant was 18 when he and another man robbed a driver of €80 and an O2 WiFi dongle shortly after 12.50am on 17 March 2015. The injured party said one of the men held a rusty six- or seven-inch knife to his neck and brought a hand across his throat. The appellant was identified on CCTV and made admissions after his arrest. He pleaded guilty on 14 December 2015.
Limerick Circuit Court sentenced him on 3 May 2016 to six years’ imprisonment, with the final two years suspended for six years. The sentence was backdated to 21 May 2015. A separate charge of producing an article capable of inflicting serious injury ended with a nolle prosequi.
On appeal against the severity of sentence, counsel argued that the sentencing judge had not properly structured the sentence or given sufficient weight to the appellant’s age, early admissions, guilty plea, personal history and rehabilitation prospects. The Director of Public Prosecutions submitted that six years was an appropriate headline sentence and that the suspended portion reflected mitigation.
The Court of Appeal agreed that the trial judge had not followed precisely the two-stage sentencing approach set out in an earlier judgment. It did not disagree with a six-year headline sentence, saying the appellant had participated fully in a serious robbery. But it found that the original sentence failed to give sufficient credit for significant mitigating factors, including his age, personal history, admissions and plea.
The court also pointed to evidence from a parish priest who had offered employment support and accommodation under strict conditions. It described the evidence as showing a “very real prospect of rehabilitation” and said rehabilitation was an important sentencing consideration, particularly where supported by specific evidence.
The court vacated the original sentence and imposed six years’ imprisonment, still backdated to 21 May 2015. It suspended the entire balance remaining to be served from 14 November 2017. The court said the period until then would allow practical arrangements to be made to support the appellant’s continued progress.