DPP v Black
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Ms. Justice Donnelly |
| Judgment Date | 26 July 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] IECA 238 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Ireland) |
| Docket Number | Record No. 262/18 |
| Date | 26 July 2019 |
[2019] IECA 238
THE COURT OF APPEAL
Donnelly J.
Birmingham P.
McCarthy J.
Donnelly J.
Record No. 262/18
Sentencing – Robbery – Severity of sentence – Appellant seeking to appeal against sentence – Whether sentence was unduly severe
Facts: The appellant, Mr Black, in Dublin Circuit Criminal Court on the 6th December 2017, was sentenced to a total of four and a half years imprisonment in respect of three counts contained in three separate bills of indictment. On Bill DU468/2017 this was an offence of robbery committed on the 17th September, 2016. He pleaded guilty at the arraignment date on the 13th June, 2017 and this was accepted as an early plea. Under Bill DU792/2017 this was an offence under s. 15 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1977. The appellant pleaded guilty on the 20th October, 2017 which was a new mention date, therefore an early plea. On Bill 434/2017, the appellant pleaded guilty to an offence of robbery, committed on the 27th January, 2017, again on a new mention date. He received a sentence of two and a half years imprisonment in respect of a robbery charge. In respect of a further charge of robbery and possession of heroin with intent to supply, he received a two year sentence on each of those counts which were to run concurrently to each other. Those sentences were to run consecutive to the sentence imposed on the count of robbery in the first bill. Those sentences were obliged to be imposed consecutively to the first robbery sentence. He had been on bail in respect of that sentence when he committed the further two offences. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal against severity of sentence. The appellant only proceeded with two grounds of appeal in oral submissions. These related to: (a) a failure to backdate the sentence; and (b) a failure to pay express attention to the role of his substance abuse in his offending and to provide at least a part suspended sentence with a view towards rehabilitation.
Held by the Court that, although it may have been better if the trial judge had expressly stated the headline sentence and how much mitigation he was giving in respect of each relevant matter, it was satisfied that the global sentence imposed for these offences was not in any way excessive. Indeed, the Court was of the view that in light of the seriousness of the final robbery in particular, the appellant received a total or global sentence that was at the lower end of the sentencing range in light of all the circumstances.
The Court held that the appeal would be dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
This is an appeal against severity of sentence imposed on the appellant in Dublin Circuit Criminal Court on the 6th December 2017. He was sentenced to a total of four and a half years imprisonment in respect of three counts contained in three separate bills of indictment. He received a sentence of two and a half years imprisonment in respect of a robbery charge. In respect of a further charge of robbery and possession of heroin with intent to supply, he received a two year sentence on each of those counts which were to run concurrently to each other. Those sentences were to run consecutive to the sentence imposed on the count of robbery in the first bill. Those sentences were obliged to be imposed consecutively to the first robbery sentence. He had been on bail in respect of that sentence when he committed the further two offences.
The details of the offences are as follows: -
On Bill DU468/2017 this was an offence of robbery committed on the 17th September, 2016. He pleaded guilty at the arraignment date on the 13th June, 2017 and this was accepted as an early plea.
The injured party was sixty-five years of age and working in a newsagent in Dublin. The appellant had come into the shop and lunged across the counter when she opened the till and took between €500 and €600 Euro. This had originally been indicated as €200 on the Book of Evidence. There was CCTV footage and the appellant was recognised by a member of An Garda Síochána. His detention under section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1984 in respect of another matter was extended for the purpose of investigating the present offence. He made admissions. A Victim Impact Report was provided to the Court. The victim was quite shocked and frightened.
Under Bill DU792/2017 this was an offence under s.15 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1977 (as amended). The appellant pleaded guilty on the 20th October, 2017 which was a new mention date, therefore an early plea. The evidence was that on the 2nd December, 2016 he had been observed acting in a suspicious manner on Amiens Street. He was searched under the Misuse of Drugs Act, tried to run away, was stopped again, and he then informed the Gardaí that there was “stuff” in his waistband. Two large white knotted packets of diamorphine were located, and a further three small deals of diamorphine were found on foot of a further search carried out in Store Street Garda Station. In total this amounted to twenty-seven grams of diamorphine approximately, with a market value of €3,838. The appellant was detained and interviewed when he made admissions that he intended to sell the drug. He claimed he had a drug debt.
On Bill 434/2017, the appellant pleaded guilty to an offence of robbery, again on a new mention date. On the 27th January, 2017, the victim in the case, who was an eighteen-year-old woman had gotten out of a taxi in Camden Street to get money out of an ATM. She was approached by the appellant who put his arms around her and told her he had a syringe. She only had eighty Euro in her account which she gave him. She could see the syringe as he walked off. She approached Gardaí and the appellant was tracked down in a room in a hotel where a syringe and €120 were found. He was later identified on CCTV and arrested in respect of this incident. Initially during the interview, he said he didn't remember what had happened, but he later accepted that he must have taken the money. No Victim Impact Report was provided by this injured party.
In relation to the appellant's circumstances, he was remanded in custody when he was charged in respect of the third bill on the 13th February, 2017. During that period of time he was also in custody serving a number of District Court sentences.
He had fifty-five previous convictions, including a conviction...
To continue reading
Request your trial