Judgment: 2021-08-19 · Court archive

Court of Appeal upholds five-year sentence over attempted Carrigaline ATM explosion

Court of Appeal ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Evan Stubbins (Appellant)
What

Court of Appeal upholds five-year sentence over attempted Carrigaline ATM explosion

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Maxol garage
  • Carrigaline
  • Court of Appeal
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The Court of Appeal rejected those arguments. It held that sentence reductions are not calculated by a fixed mathematical formula and that the five-year term remained within the sentencing judge’s discretion.

The Court of Appeal has upheld a five-year prison sentence imposed on Evan Stubbins after he was caught preparing to use propane and oxygen in an attempted attack on an ATM in Carrigaline.

Gardaí were on patrol shortly after 2am on August 2, 2020 when they saw a white Volkswagen Passat parked close to an ATM at a Maxol garage in Ballinrea. Stubbins was observed using a screwdriver on the front of the machine. Within seconds he was back in the car trying to leave.

When Gardaí arrested him, two canisters strapped into the rear of the vehicle were emitting gas. They were later identified as propane and oxygen and formed the basis of the explosive-substances charge.

Stubbins told Gardaí that he owed a drug debt and that others had suggested the offence. He said he researched the method on YouTube, visited the location the previous night and intended to mix the gases and place them in the ATM to gain access to its contents.

He entered signed guilty pleas to possession of explosive substances, attempted theft and criminal damage. The sentencing judge selected seven years as the headline term for the explosives offence, then reduced it to five years for mitigation. Concurrent two-year terms were imposed for the other offences.

On appeal, Stubbins argued that the discount was insufficient, particularly given the value of signed pleas, and that a further reduction should have been made for his age and cooperation. He also said the crude nature of the plan had wrongly been treated as aggravating.

The Court of Appeal rejected those arguments. It held that sentence reductions are not calculated by a fixed mathematical formula and that the five-year term remained within the sentencing judge’s discretion.

The court also found that the judge had not treated lack of sophistication itself as aggravating. Rather, the crude attempt increased the potential danger to Stubbins and others. The appeal was dismissed.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review