The Court of Appeal has upheld a three-year sentence, with the final 12 months suspended, for an attempted robbery at a Finglas takeaway. The appellant argued that the sentence was excessive because he had already served the custodial part of a four-year sentence for a similar robbery committed about 35 minutes later. The court dismissed the appeal against severity of sentence.
The attempted robbery took place at about 11pm on 24 March 2020. The takeaway owner told gardaí that a man jumped onto the counter while brandishing a broken bottle and demanded money. The owner took up a hurl from behind the counter, and the man left without taking anything. The owner and a colleague said they were frightened. CCTV footage and DNA found on clothing recovered in a nearby laneway were used to identify the appellant, the judgment said.
The appellant pleaded guilty on 4 July 2023, the scheduled trial date. At sentencing in Dublin Circuit Criminal Court in November 2023, the judge set a headline sentence of four years, reduced it to three years to reflect mitigation, and suspended the final 12 months for two years. The suspension was subject to conditions including keeping the peace, attending probation appointments, continuing addiction support and completing offence-focused and victim impact work.
The appellant submitted that the court should have given greater weight to the close timing and similarity of the two offences under the principles of totality and proportionality. He also argued that his rehabilitation efforts, including addiction support and vocational courses, warranted a fully suspended sentence. The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that the offences formed part of a spree, that the plea came late after witnesses had prepared for trial, and that the sentencing judge had properly considered both mitigation and rehabilitation.
The Court of Appeal said the judge who sentenced the appellant for the 2021 robbery had not known about the second offence. Had that judge known, the court said, the existence of two offences would have affected the overall sentence. The 2023 sentencing judge was aware of the earlier sentence and had information about the appellant’s rehabilitation; the appeal court found she had taken those matters into account and acted within her discretion.
The court said the appellant was not entitled to a fully suspended sentence, or a greater suspended portion, because the offences were related. Considering both sentences together, it concluded that a person with the appellant’s record receiving them for two robberies on the same night was not excessive or disproportionate. The judgment said the overall effect was that he would serve no more than five years in custody.