DPP v Kavanagh
 IECA 17
THE COURT OF APPEAL
Finlay Geoghegan, J.
127/2014 - Finlay Geoghegan Irvine Hogan - Court of Appeal - 24/11/2014 - 2014 16 4389 2014 IECA 17
CRIMINAL JUSTICE (THEFT & FRAUD OFFENCES) ACT 2001 S14
DPP v RYAN UNREP CCA 18.3.2014 2014 IECCA 11
Crime & sentencing – Offences against property – Robbery – Appeal against sentence
Facts: The appellant had been convicted of robbery in respect of two separate offences. He now appealed against sentence on the basis the sentencing judge had fallen into error and had failed to take sufficient account of the totality principle
Held by Finlay Geoghegan J that the appeal would be dismissed. The sentencing judge had taken account of the mitigating and aggravating factors in a manner permitted by earlier case law. Further, there was no breach of the totality principle in the sentences handed down by the judge. DPP v Ryan  IECCA 11 considered.
1. The appellant appeals against two sentences imposed by his Honour Judge O'Shea on the 14 th May, 2014. The first sentence arose from the conviction of the appellant having pleaded guilty to an offence of robbery contrary to s. 14 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001, in respect of which the facts were that on the 27 th June, 2013, when at the Bar One Racing Bookmakers, he stole a sum in excess of €4,000, close to closing time and exerted some force and put under fear the employee who was then closing up the bookmakers. He pleaded to that offence on the 4 th February, 2014.
2. The second offence to which he also pleaded on the 4 th February, 2014, again was an offence contrary to s. 14 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001. This was an offence which took place on the 7 th August, 2013, in a Dunnes Stores carpark when he stole from Mary MacDonald a sum of €70 and a number of personal matters. In the course of that offence he exerted some considerable force on the unfortunate victim, where he banged her head off the ground on three occasions and as a result of which she suffered lacerations to her head (five stitches) and was seven months out of work.
3. It was accepted by the prosecuting garda that these offences were probably not premeditated by the appellant. He appears at the time to have been out of work and was engaging in both alcohol and drugs, and needed the money to pay for drugs and to pay off drug dealers.
4. However, the second offence was committed after he had been charged with and was on bail for the first offence. Subsequent to being charged with the second offence, he was released on bail and attended Victory Outreach for approximately two and a half months and by the time of the sentencing had not further come to the attention of the gardaí and had clean urine test results.
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL