The Court of Appeal has increased a man’s sentence for robbing a woman at a Tallaght bus stop from 21 months to four years, with the final six months suspended on conditions.
The court allowed an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993, quashed the sentence imposed in the Circuit Court and resentenced the defendant. It ordered that he be credited for the portion of his sentence already served. The suspended portion is conditional on entering a €100 bond to be of good behaviour for two years.
The man had pleaded guilty to robbery. The offence took place at The Square, Tallaght, on 26 September 2019. The court heard that he approached the woman as she waited alone at a bus stop after work, asked her for a light and then a cigarette. He grabbed her by the shoulder, said he had a knife, took her bag and ran. She did not resist because she thought he might have a knife.
A security guard heard a description of the suspect over the radio and saw someone matching it run past. Gardaí apprehended the defendant shortly afterwards, and he was still carrying some of the woman’s property. CCTV footage also showed the incident. The judgment records that the woman did not provide a victim impact statement; the court noted that no inference could be drawn from its absence that the offence had little or no effect.
The defendant had 17 previous convictions, including five for robbery and four for assault. The court also considered his early guilty plea, remorse, drug addiction, personal circumstances and the bereavement of his long-term partner. He had been in custody from the date of the offence and was released in January 2021. At the appeal hearing, the court was told he was on methadone maintenance, had a new partner and was seeking support services, though no documentation was provided.
The appeal court said the sentencing judge’s failure to identify a starting “headline” sentence was not, by itself, an error of principle. Applying the sentencing range for robbery, it assessed the appropriate headline sentence in this case at six years, citing the circumstances of the robbery and the defendant’s relevant previous convictions. It concluded that reducing that figure to 21 months gave excessive credit for mitigation and amounted to undue leniency. Taking account of his release and efforts to engage with services, the court imposed four years, suspending the final six months on the stated conditions.