The Court of Appeal has varied a six-year detention sentence imposed on a teenager who was just short of his 16th birthday when he took part in an aggravated burglary in Glasnevin. The court suspended the final 12 months, subject to supervision and conditions set by the Probation Service.
The appellant had pleaded guilty to aggravated burglary, robbery and two counts of false imprisonment. The offences were committed late on 27 April 2011 at a house on Botanic Avenue occupied by a young student couple. The judgment said he and three accomplices forced their way in and threatened the occupants with a knife. The young man was taken to an ATM and forced to withdraw €600. He later escaped from a car and alerted gardaí.
The court described the offending as being at the upper end of the scale of gravity and said the victims suffered significant psychological consequences. It also noted that the appellant had 23 previous convictions by the age of 15, including robbery, burglary and criminal damage. He was already serving a detention sentence at Trinity House for other robberies when these offences occurred.
The sentencing judge had imposed six years’ detention in March 2012. On appeal, the court said that term was not unreasonable and that an equivalent sentence for an adult might have been eight years. However, it found an error of principle because the sentencing judge had not made sufficient provision for the appellant’s rehabilitation, given his age and positive signs during his time at Trinity House.
The appeal court said detention for a child should be a last resort under the Children Act 2001, and that a portion of the sentence should have been suspended to support rehabilitation outside prison. It did not defer the sentence as the appellant’s counsel had sought. Instead, the court resentenced him to six years, with the final year suspended for the remainder of his time in custody and two years after release. He must co-operate with the Probation Service and comply with its conditions.
The court also considered certificates the appellant had earned in custody, a supporting letter and a prison report recording breaches of prison rules. The judgment does not specify the date of the appeal hearing; it was delivered on 21 July 2015.