The Court of Appeal has dismissed Shane Dineen’s challenge to a three-year prison sentence for robbing a pizza delivery driver at knifepoint in Cork. It said the combined custodial term for the robbery and 16 other offences was not excessive and could arguably be viewed as lenient.
Dineen was sentenced at Cork Circuit Criminal Court on 26 January 2016. The robbery sentence was three years from 2 July 2015. The other 16 sentences, for serious road traffic and criminal damage offences, were concurrent with one another but were to begin after the robbery sentence. Some had suspended portions, including the final 18 months. Those offences were not part of this appeal.
The judgment said the robbery took place on 8 November 2014 at Cobh Street, Cork. Delivery driver Ateef Akbar had brought a €51 order to 35 Cobh Street. After one man took part of the order, Dineen produced a knife when Akbar asked for payment, took the rest and walked away. CCTV identified Dineen and a co-accused, and Dineen admitted making the order without intending to pay. He pleaded guilty.
Dineen argued that the sentencing judge had not transparently weighed aggravating and mitigating factors, had given insufficient weight to his personal circumstances and guilty plea, and imposed a disproportionate overall sentence. The judgment recorded that he had been homeless and addicted to alcohol and drugs when the offence occurred, had spent time in state and foster care as a child, and had eight previous District Court convictions.
The Court of Appeal agreed that the sentencing judge had not identified a starting “headline” sentence based on the offence’s gravity. That made it difficult to see what reduction, if any, had been allowed for mitigation. But the court said this did not by itself require the sentence to be quashed; the question was whether the final sentence showed an obvious error of principle.
The appeal court considered the sentences together, noting that the other 16 offences were serious and that the sentencing judge had to account for proportionality and totality. It concluded that the overall custodial term of four and a half years was not excessive. The appeal was dismissed.