The Court of Appeal reduced Joseph Warren’s sentence for conspiracy connected to an attempted cash-in-transit robbery, substituting a term of six years and six months from 7 November 2012.
The court heard that a jury at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court convicted Warren on 7 November 2012 of one count of conspiracy under section 71 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 and section 4 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001. He had received an eight-year sentence for that offence. His conviction appeal had been dismissed on 4 July 2016; the present appeal concerned sentence severity.
A separate six-year sentence for a firearms offence, imposed on the same day and ordered to run consecutively, was not appealed. The final three years of the resulting 14-year total sentence had been suspended on conditions.
The case arose from an attempt on 2 November 2007 to steal cash from a Chubb cash-in-transit vehicle at a shopping centre in Celbridge, County Kildare. Gardaí intercepted the attempt during a surveillance operation. The judgment said Warren and another man approached the vehicle and unsuccessfully tried to open its door before gardaí intervened and arrested men at or near the scene. At trial, Warren maintained that he acted under duress; the jury rejected that defence by its verdict.
Warren’s appeal argued that the sentencing judge had wrongly treated him as part of an organised criminal gang involved in other serious crimes, and had taken account of the gang’s clothing at a later funeral. He also argued that the sentence penalised him for contesting the charge and was excessive compared with sentences imposed on two co-accused, Alan and Wayne Bradley. The prosecution said the eight-year sentence was reasonable and proportionate.
The Court of Appeal said the Bradley brothers had pleaded guilty, while Warren contested the charge and underwent a lengthy trial. It also found that Warren’s role appeared to have been using his skill and training with cutting equipment, with no evidence that he planned the operation or led it. His lack of serious previous convictions supported his position.
The court held that the sentence should have reflected his participation on the day without a leadership role and his relatively good record. It found an error of principle and set a seven-year headline sentence. After considering prison reports describing positive engagement and rehabilitation, along with family support and employment prospects, the court reduced that term by six months. The re-sentencing did not alter the separate firearms sentence, which was outside this appeal.