Judgment: 2019-10-21 · Court archive

Court upholds 21-month sentence for Castle Interiors manager over till thefts

Court of Appeal ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Alan Moore (Appellant)
  • Castle Interiors
What

Court upholds 21-month sentence for Castle Interiors manager over till thefts

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Castle Interiors
When

Judgment:

Why

Read the report below for the decision and any reasons given.

The Court of Appeal has upheld a 21-month prison sentence imposed on former Castle Interiors manager Alan Moore for stealing cash from his employer in Letterkenny.

Moore was convicted after a five-day trial of ten theft charges. He had worked at Castle Interiors since 2005 and, as manager, was responsible for the financial affairs of the business. The appeal court said he therefore occupied a position of considerable trust.

The offences were detected during covert surveillance of the shop’s till area. Over the period observed, Moore was recorded repeatedly failing to ring items through the till, creating excess cash which he was then seen taking in small amounts and putting into his pocket.

The ten charges involved €440. However, the court said the surveillance provided a window into what Moore himself had described as a system operating over a longer period.

When interviewed, Moore denied stealing. He said he had operated a haphazard system involving removing money for change, small purchases and banking. He also claimed scanning problems sometimes explained why transactions were not immediately entered. Those explanations were contradicted by prosecution evidence and rejected by the jury.

Moore also alleged that the case was a vindictive attempt by his employer to avoid an unfair dismissal claim. The Court of Appeal said the sentencing judge did not punish Moore for contesting the charges, which he was entitled to do. Rather, the absence of an admission, remorse or guilty plea meant those usual mitigating factors were unavailable.

The court accepted that Moore, then 54, had no relevant previous convictions and otherwise had a record of good character. But it also emphasised the systematic theft, breach of trust and negative impact on his employer and the business.

It found a two-year headline sentence appropriate and held that reducing it to 21 months sufficiently reflected the mitigation. The sentence appeal was dismissed.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review