DPP v Paulauskas
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Birmingham |
| Judgment Date | 02 November 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] IECA 306 |
| Docket Number | No. 156/16 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Ireland) |
| Date | 02 November 2017 |
[2017] IECA 306
THE COURT OF APPEAL
Birmingham J.
Birmingham J.
Edwards J.
Hedigan J.
No. 156/16
Conviction – Robbery – Identification – Appellant seeking to appeal against conviction and sentence – Whether judge erred in law in refusing the request of counsel to particularise the Casey warning
Facts: The appellant, Mr Paulauskas, on 11th May, 2016, at Galway Circuit Court, was convicted by a jury on two counts, one of robbery and one of possession of an imitation firearm. On 12th May, 2016, he was sentenced to fourteen years imprisonment in respect of the robbery offence and to a concurrent sentence of five years imprisonment, the statutory presumptive minimum, in respect of the firearms matter. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal against his conviction and sentence, submitting that the judge erred in law in refusing the request of counsel to particularise the Casey warning.
Held by the Court that what was said by the judge in relation to identification was, in all the circumstances of the case, adequate. The Court held that this was not a classic identification case; the facts were as far removed from the facts of Casey as it is possible to imagine. The Court held that this was in truth a "caught-in-the-act" or "hot pursuit" case. The Court was satisfied that the conviction in the circumstances of the case was safe and proper and the Court dismissed the appeal against conviction.
The Court held that that robbery offences involving actual loaded firearms are in a graver category than what the Court was dealing with in this case. It seemed to the Court that it was proper to draw some distinction between imitation and actual loaded, lest the view be taken that one might as well bring an actual loaded firearm on the robbery. For that reason, the Court felt that some limited modification of the sentence imposed in the Circuit Court was appropriate. The Court identified as the starting point a sentence of thirteen years imprisonment rather than the starting point of fifteen years identified by the trial judge. The Court then discounted from that identified starting point leaving a net sentence of twelve years imprisonment in respect of the robbery count. The Court left unaltered the concurrent sentence in respect of the imitation firearm of five years.
Appeal allowed.
On 11th May, 2016, at Galway Circuit Court, the appellant was convicted by a jury on two counts, one of robbery and one of possession of an imitation firearm. On 12th May, 2016, he was sentenced to 14 years imprisonment in respect of the robbery offence and to a concurrent sentence of five years imprisonment, the statutory presumptive minimum, in respect of the firearms matter. So far as the conviction aspect is concerned, essentially two grounds of appeal were identified in the notice of appeal and in the written submissions, these being that:
1. The verdict of the jury was perverse and contrary to the evidence; and,
2. The judge erred in law in refusing the request of counsel to particularise the Casey warning.
The appellant says that force is given to his arguments by reason of the fact that the jury spent only 32 minutes deliberating having heard evidence over six days.
The first ground of appeal that the verdict of the jury was perverse has not been argued today, and very wisely so. It is the case that there was no application for a direction nor could there realistically ever have been and it was clearly a case that was properly one to be considered by a jury.
This Court will now turn to the second ground in relation to the Casey warning. The background to the trial and conviction is to be found in events that occurred on Wednesday, 11th February, 2015. At approximately 10:42 a.m., four males dressed in dark clothing, wearing gloves and with their faces partially covered entered Hartmanns Jewellers situated at William Street in Galway city centre. Approximately 90 seconds later the same four men, having held up the staff at gunpoint, left the premises with two bags containing diamond rings and Rolex watches with a retail value of approximately €1.139 m. There was CCTV footage at trial from Hartmanns jeweller shop and also from the William Street, Shop Street and Abbeygate Street area of Galway. Gardaí were alerted to the fact that a robbery was under way and responded to the call at 10:48 a.m. Shortly thereafter, two suspects were arrested at Middle Street, Galway, which is not far from Hartmanns jewellers. One of those was the appellant. The other was found to be in possession of a pistol, as it happens, an imitation pistol with a silencer attached. Two other suspects were arrested a little later at Fairgreen Road as they waited for the departure of a bus from Galway to Dublin. That was at 11:30 a.m. A follow up search in the Fairgreen Road area saw the stolen jewellery which was contained in two rucksacks recovered. Everything was recovered with the exception of one ring and as it happened a member of the public later contacted Galway Garda Station and handed over the remaining diamond ring which she had found on Dock Road, Galway.
The prosecution case was that, fortuitously, there were a number of Gardaí in Galway city centre that day and they were in the general Shop Street area. Two of those were Detective Sergeant John McElroy and Detective Garda Gerry Carroll. They were alerted to the fact that a robbery had taken place and responded. At Abbeygate Street, they saw a male moving quickly with a phone to his ear and it turned out that this individual was a civilian who was in contact with Gardaí and was reporting to them what was going on in real time. That was Mr. Christopher O'Brien who later appeared as a prosecution witness. The detectives spoke to him and then they proceeded down Middle Street in pursuit. Two people were apprehended and restrained and were then arrested. This was after a struggle. One of those detained was the appellant, Irmantas Paulauskas. The other was a man by the name of Saulius Ripecka who subsequently pleaded guilty to offences in relation to...
To continue reading
Request your trial