The Court of Appeal has dismissed Vasile Marin’s appeal against the severity of a three-year sentence for robbing an 81-year-old woman near her home in Bayside. The sentence includes 18 months suspended for 18 months, subject to conditions including probation supervision.
In a judgment delivered on 30 May 2019, the court found no error of principle in the sentencing judge’s decision. It said the offence fell within the low range for robbery but was at its higher end because Marin targeted a vulnerable victim and caused her significant psychological harm.
The robbery took place on 10 September 2016. The woman had been shopping at a Eurospar and was walking towards her nearby home with her groceries and purse in a trolley. Evidence at trial was that Marin approached from behind, put an arm around her, and took the purse from the trolley. The judgment records that Marin later admitted following her and taking the purse. He said he took €190 and told gardaí he had been drinking and owed money from roulette.
The woman reported shock, anxiety and lasting effects after the incident. She did not leave home for more than six months and later stopped handling cash and grocery shopping, according to the judgment.
The sentencing judge set a three-year headline sentence and suspended its final 18 months. The suspended portion was conditional on a bond to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, as well as 12 months of probation supervision. The probation conditions included attending appointments, following directions about mental health and impulsive behaviour, and engaging with a referral for employment or training support.
On appeal, Marin argued that the sentence was excessive and that the judge gave too much weight to the woman’s age and vulnerability, while giving too little weight to his guilty plea, remorse, personal circumstances and the probation report. The appeal court rejected those arguments. It said the judge had properly considered the mitigating factors and applied a 50 per cent reduction from the headline sentence through the partial suspension.
The court also rejected the claim that the sentencing judge had applied a fixed policy requiring imprisonment whenever an elderly person was targeted. It said the judge had been entitled to conclude that the targeting of a vulnerable person elevated the offence’s gravity and that custody was required. The appeal was dismissed; the sentence remained in place.