The People (At the Suit of the DPP) v Albert Redmond
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr Justice Edwards |
| Judgment Date | 24 January 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] IECA 44 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Ireland) |
| Docket Number | Record No: 252/20 |
[2022] IECA 44
The President
Edwards J.
Ní Raifeartaigh J.
Record No: 252/20
THE COURT OF APPEAL
Sentencing – Burglary – Severity of sentence – Appellant seeking to appeal against sentence – Whether sentence was unduly severe
Facts: The appellant, Mr Redmond, appeared before the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court for sentence on the 12th of November 2020 following pleas of guilty on counts 1-20 of burglary contrary to s. 12(1)(b) and (3) of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001, counts 21 and 22 of criminal damage contrary to s. 2(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1991 and counts 23-30 of theft contrary to s. 18 and s. 6 of the 2001 Act. The offences were committed over separate periods of time and were contained in two bills of indictment before the court, Bill 324/20 relating to 1 count of burglary and criminal damage committed on the 27th of October 2019 and Bill 504/20 relating to 30 counts involving burglary, criminal damage and theft committed between the 27th of October 2019 and the 2nd of March 2020. The majority of the offences charged on Bill 504/20 were committed whilst the appellant was on bail for the offence contained in Bill 324/20. The sentences imposed were as follows: Bill 324/20 – 4 years’ imprisonment; Bill 504/20 – (count 1) 4 years’ imprisonment to run consecutively to sentence imposed for Bill 324/20; (count 10) 4 years’ imprisonment to run consecutively to sentence imposed for Bill 324/20; (count 16) 4 ½ years’ imprisonment to run consecutively to counts 1 and 10, suspended in full for 4 ½ years; (count 21) 2 years and 8 months to run concurrently to count 1. The remaining counts were taken into consideration and the sentence was backdated to the 19th of December 2019 in consideration for time spent on in custody while on remand. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal against the severity of the sentence imposed on the following grounds: (i) the sentencing judge erred in law in placing the offences at the wrong place on the spectrum; (ii) the sentencing judge erred in law in setting a headline sentence which did not accurately reflect the severity of the offending; (iii) the sentencing judge erred in law in failing to take full and proper account of the personal circumstances of the appellant; (iv) the sentencing judge erred in law in failing to take full and proper account of the mitigation; (v) the sentencing judge erred in law in failing to take full and proper account of the principles of totality and proportionality; and (vi) the sentencing judge erred in law in imposing a sentence which was unduly severe given the circumstances of the offence and the offender.
Held by the Court that, in circumstances where it had identified an error of principle with respect to the sentencing for count 16, and in terms of the overall structuring of the sentencing package, it would allow the appeal, quash the sentences imposed at first instance on Bill 504/2020 and re-sentence the appellant afresh. The Court held that the sentence on Bill 324/2020 would remain unaltered.
The Court nominated headline sentences of 6 years imprisonment in respect of counts 1 and 10. The Court discounted by one third from these to reflect mitigation, leaving post mitigation sentences of 4 years imprisonment. Insofar as count 16 was concerned, the Court nominated a headline sentence of 7 years imprisonment and discounted from this by 2 years to reflect mitigation, leaving a post mitigation sentence of 5 years imprisonment. The Court held that counts 1, 10 and 16 on Bill 504/2020 must all be made consecutive to the sentence imposed on Bill 324/2020; however, the sentences to be served on counts 1, 10 and 16 were to be concurrent inter se. The Court held that the remainder of the counts on Bill 504/2020 were to be taken into consideration. The Court suspended the final year of the sentence on count 16 to acknowledge and reflect the renewed resolve expressed by the appellant to finally move away from a life of crime. The Court held that the conditions attaching to the suspended portion of the sentence were to be the same as heretofore, save in respect of the duration of the period of suspension; the new period of suspension would be 12 months from the date of his release from custody.
Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT of the Court delivered on the 24th day of January, 2022 by Mr Justice Edwards.
The appellant in this case appeared before Judge Sheahan in the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court for sentence on the 12th of November 2020 following pleas of guilty on Counts 1–20 of burglary contrary to s.12(1)(b) and (3) of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001, Counts 21 and 22 of criminal damage contrary to s. 2(1) of the Criminal Damage Act, 1991 and Counts 23 – 30 of theft contrary to s.18 and s.6 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001.
The offences were committed over separate periods of time and were contained in two bills of indictment before the court, Bill 324/20 relating to 1 count of burglary and criminal damage committed on the 27th of October 2019 and Bill 504/20 relating to 30 counts involving burglary, criminal damage and theft committed between the 27th of October 2019 and the 2nd of March 2020. The majority of the offences charged on Bill 504/20 were committed whilst the appellant was on bail for the offence contained in Bill 324/20.
The sentences imposed are set out as found in the appellant's submissions:
The remaining counts were taken into consideration and the sentence was backdated to the 19th of December 2019 in consideration for time spent on in custody while on remand.
-
• Bill 324/20: 4 years' imprisonment.
-
• Bill 504/20:
-
○ Count 1: 4 years' imprisonment to run consecutively to sentence imposed for bill 324/20.
-
○ Count 10: 4 years' imprisonment to run consecutively to sentence imposed for bill 324/20.
-
○ Count 16: 4 1/2 years' imprisonment to run consecutively to counts 1 and 10, suspended in full for 4 1/2 years.
-
○ Count 21: 2 years and 8 months to run concurrently to count 1.
-
The appellant now appeals the severity of the sentence imposed.
On the 27th of October 2019 the appellant who was wearing a red jacket is captured on CCTV breaking the glass front door of Coffee 2 Go at 79 Mespil Road, Ballsbridge and entering the premises. During the burglary he is seen breaking a lock on an internal door and ransacking the office and kitchen areas. The total amount of cash taken during the burglary amounted to approximately €2,500. While breaking the front door the appellant injured himself and blood stains were found throughout the premises.
The appellant was identified from the CCTV footage and following the obtaining of a search warrant a red jacket and a blood stained check shirt were recovered from his premises. The following day the appellant was located in the Christ Church area of Dublin in a heavily intoxicated state. He was arrested and found to be in possession of €1,225. During interviews with the Gardaí he initially maintained that this money was earned while he was in Mountjoy jail however, on viewing the CCTV footage he subsequently admitted to the burglary at Coffee 2 Go.
On the 28th of October 2019 the appellant was remanded in custody until the 7th of January 2020 when the matter was struck out as the Book of Evidence was not ready. The appellant was recharged on the 8th of February 2020, shortly following which he obtained bail.
On the 27th of October 2019 the appellant was captured on CCTV entering the premises of Mount Pleasant Tennis Club after forcing an emergency door and breaking a window to the value of €200. The appellant dressed in a red jacket is seen on the CCTV ransacking the office area. Nothing of substantial value was taken during the burglary. This offence relates to criminal damage to a window and is the subject of Count 21 on Bill 504/20.
On the 6th of February 2020 the appellant committed a burglary at the Yamamori Sushi restaurant where CCTV shows him entering the staff room and rummaging through coats belonging to staff. The appellant admitted that a wallet taken by him was subsequently thrown in the river Liffey.
On the 12th of February 2020 the appellant is seen on CCTV entering three offices at 54 Dawson Street (i.e., those of the Dublin Solicitors Bar Association, those of Unique Japan Tours and those of Paulson Management Limited) where he smashed glass panels in order to gain entry to each of the offices. In the office of the Dublin Solicitors Bar Association, medals made by Weir and Son were stolen, as was a small sum of cash (amount unspecified) from the offices of Unique Japan Tours. Nothing was taken from the office of Paulson Management Limited.
On the 15th of February 2020 CCTV footage was recovered from the premises of Sunglasses.ie where the appellant took €200 from the cash register.
On the 25th of February 2020 CCTV was obtained from the premises of Crowe Street Restaurant where the appellant entered and following his rummaging through staff members belongings he took bank cards and €200 in cash.
On the 27th of February 2020 CCTV captures the appellant entering the Terenure Enterprise Centre and after initially speaking with an employee who subsequently leaves the area he is then seen entering her office and taking her credit card. This offence relates to burglary and is the subject of Count 10 on Bill 504/20.
The appellant committed another burglary on this day at the residential property at 3 Bloom Court, 47A Clanbrassil Street where, while the occupant was at home he stole a bicycle and €150 in foreign currency. The occupant was not disturbed during the burglary and only noticed the items...
To continue reading
Request your trial