The Court of Appeal has allowed Albert Redmond’s appeal against the severity of his sentence and resentenced him to a total of nine years’ imprisonment, with the final year suspended subject to conditions.
The court quashed the sentences imposed on Bill 504/20, but left unchanged the four-year sentence on Bill 324/20. It imposed four years each on Counts 1 and 10 of Bill 504/20, and five years on Count 16. Those three sentences are concurrent with one another but consecutive to the sentence on Bill 324/20. The remaining counts on Bill 504/20 are taken into consideration. The final year of the sentence on Count 16 is suspended for 12 months from Redmond’s release from custody, on the same conditions as before apart from the suspension period.
Redmond had pleaded guilty to 31 counts across two indictments involving burglary, criminal damage and theft. The offences took place between October 2019 and March 2020, with the majority on Bill 504/20 committed while he was on bail for the offence on Bill 324/20. At first instance, the court imposed consecutive and concurrent terms, including a 4½-year sentence on Count 16 suspended in full. The appeal court said the overall first-instance sentence totalled 12½ years, with that 4½-year portion suspended.
The appeal court upheld the first-instance judge’s assessment of the headline sentences and the discounts for mitigation. It said the repeated non-residential burglaries could be treated as a group, given their timing and similar method, and that the number of offences made a higher headline sentence appropriate. It also accepted a seven-year headline sentence for the residential burglary represented by Count 16.
But the appeal court found an error in making Count 16 consecutive to Count 1. It said the higher headline sentence for residential burglaries already reflected their greater seriousness, and the offences were sufficiently related that Count 16 did not need to be treated as a separate group for consecutive sentencing. The court also considered the original structure undesirable because Redmond might later have to serve the suspended term, undoing the adjustment for totality.
In resentencing, the court said the final suspended year reflected Redmond’s stated renewed resolve to move away from crime, while taking account of his history of offending and the risk that he might not succeed. The appeal court’s order was to allow the appeal and resentence him as set out in its judgment.