The Court of Appeal has dismissed a prosecution appeal seeking to increase the sentence imposed on Joseph Walshe for stealing goods from his employer, Nevinar Cosmetics Limited. The court described the sentence as lenient but found no error of principle and was not satisfied that it was unduly lenient.
Walshe was convicted after a 12-day trial in the Circuit Criminal Court on 10 theft counts concerning goods taken between November 2009 and December 2011. The Court of Appeal judgment said the goods had a cost price of €181,532 and a retail value of €728,494. It said the company’s loss was €181,532.
Walshe had worked as Nevinar’s general manager, with responsibility for stock control. According to the judgment, he arranged for Clarins goods held at a UK warehouse to be released under the guise of free-of-charge or purchase-credit-release orders, then sent them to a purchaser who believed he was dealing with Nevinar. Payments were directed to Walshe’s personal bank account. The judgment said €205,000 was lodged to that account during the period.
The Circuit Criminal Court sentenced Walshe on 15 June 2017 to two and a half years’ imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently, with the final year suspended on condition that he repay €181,532 within one year. It also imposed a €100 bond and required him to be of good behaviour during imprisonment and for a further year after release.
The prosecution argued that the sentence failed to give sufficient weight to the scale of the theft, breach of trust, planning, duration and need for general deterrence. It also challenged the trial judge’s headline sentence of three and a half years and the weight given to mitigation. The defence argued that the cost price, rather than retail value, reflected the loss, and that the repayment condition and Walshe’s personal circumstances supported the sentence.
The appeal court said the prosecution had to show a substantial departure from the appropriate sentence and that it was not for the appeal court to decide what sentence it would have imposed. It found the sentencing judge had followed the proper approach: setting a headline sentence, then taking aggravating and mitigating factors into account. The court concluded that, although the sentence was lenient, it was not shown to be unduly lenient. The appeal was dismissed.