The Court of Appeal has dismissed Gary Riordan’s appeal against the severity of his sentence for attempting to rob a taxi driver with a knife, finding no error of principle by the sentencing judge.
Riordan pleaded guilty in February 2016 to attempted robbery, producing a knife capable of inflicting injury, and assault. For attempted robbery he received five years in prison, with the final 12 months suspended on conditions. He received a concurrent two-year sentence for producing the knife; the assault was taken into consideration. The sentences were to run from 9 September 2015.
The appeal court heard that the incident happened at Charleville Mall in Dublin 1 on 8 September 2015. The taxi driver, identified in the judgment as Mr Pferst, told Gardaí that Riordan produced a knife and moved to attack him after the car stopped. The driver grabbed the blade and ordered him out. He later drove away with the knife and contacted Gardaí. The court noted that the driver suffered no injury, but was significantly traumatised and said the incident affected his ability to work.
Riordan argued that the sentence was excessive and that the sentencing judge had not given enough weight to his personal circumstances and efforts to address addiction. The court considered his early guilty plea, remorse, past periods of stability and offers of support for rehabilitation. It also noted his record of similar offending and that he was serving a suspended sentence for serious offences when he committed this offence.
The appeal court said the sentencing judge had not identified a headline sentence before allowing for mitigation, which it described as a departure from best practice. That was not, however, a ground of appeal. The court rejected the argument that five years was too high, describing the offence as an attempted armed robbery and saying a headline sentence in the high single digits would have been justified given its gravity and aggravating circumstances.
It concluded that the sentence imposed showed significant allowance for mitigation and that suspending the final year was intended to encourage rehabilitation. The court found the appellant had not established an error of principle and dismissed the appeal.