The Court of Appeal has dismissed Stephen Freeman’s appeal against the severity of a 10-year sentence for attempted robbery, finding the sentence was not excessive and that the sentencing judge made no error of principle.
The sentence, imposed for an offence in 2009, suspended its final two years. The suspension was conditional on Freeman entering his own bond, keeping the peace and being of good behaviour for three years after release, and engaging with the probation service for 12 months.
Freeman challenged the sentence on seven grounds. His written submissions argued that the sentencing judge wrongly treated him as a major player, gave insufficient weight to his personal circumstances and mitigating factors, and did not adequately account for his age at the time, admissions, remorse and guilty plea. The appeal also argued that the sentence was excessive and disproportionate.
The judgment recounted evidence given at the sentencing hearing by Detective Inspector Hennebry. At about 5am on 3 November 2009, three armed and masked men entered a couple’s home. The wife was restrained with the couple’s three children, while the husband was told to obtain €3 million from his employer, the Bank of Ireland, or his wife would be shot. She was held at gunpoint at a disused weather station for about eight hours. She later freed herself and was found distressed by a priest and a passerby.
The court said it was common ground that Freeman did not plan or organise the crime and was not at the victims’ home. His agreed role was to be available to move the anticipated proceeds between two locations. The judgment said he was to have a €5,000 gambling debt cancelled for his involvement and had recruited someone he knew to help complete his part. The court concluded that, although he was not involved in planning, he had agreed to play a significant role in carrying out the crime.
The appeal court said the sentencing judge had applied proportionality, considered relevant mitigating factors including Freeman’s gambling addiction, and suspended part of the sentence on terms intended to support rehabilitation. It also noted that the victim family remained significantly traumatised about five years after the offence. The court dismissed the appeal. The judgment was delivered ex tempore on 15 October 2015 by Sheehan J.