Ringleader of ‘chilling’ theft has term cut

The ringleader of a “spine-chilling” attack — in which a student was “frog-marched” to an ATM and told to withdraw money or his girlfriend would be raped by two accomplices — has had his jail term reduced on appeal.

The 20-year-old, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, had pleaded guilty to aggravated burglary, robbery, and false imprisonment at Botanic Avenue, Dublin 9, on April 27, 2011. He was sentenced to six years’ detention by Judge Martin Nolan on March 29, 2012.

The Court of Appeal heard that the victims were a young woman and her engineering-student boyfriend, who have since broken up as a result of the incident. The boyfriend blamed himself for not being able to spare his girlfriend from the ordeal. She moved back to live with her parents while he cut short his college career.

Anne Rowland, for the DPP, said the young offender was “the ringleader” from the time he entered the house with his accomplices.

He held a knife to the student’s throat and commented that he would give him a quick cut while moving it across his face.

After he had gotten €40 from the victims, he told them, “you better get more than that or I’ll slice you”. Referring to the student’s girlfriend, he said,:“I’ll hurt her if you don’t give me the PIN number” to an ATM card.

The man was then “frog-marched” from his girlfriend’s home to a nearby ATM while his girlfriend was held back at the house by two accomplices. The victim was told that if he did not comply, his girlfriend would be raped, Ms Rowland said.

At 11.15pm, €600 was withdrawn from the ATM and there were suggestions they would wait until midnight to get another withdrawal.

Ms Rowland said the motivation behind the offence was money.

In identifying an error in the 20-year-old’s six-year sentence, Mr Justice Alan Mahon said the final 12 months should have been suspended.

Obviously he was a child “out of control” and who needed rehabilitation if there was any chance of him avoiding a life of serious crime as an adult, Mr Justice Mahon said.

What occurred was “spine- chilling” and “quite horrific”, the judge said.

If the offender, aged 15 when he committed this offence, had been an adult, it could be said that the six-year sentence was unduly lenient. What made this case different was the offender’s young age at the time.

Mr Justice Mahon said these cases required particular attention on the question of rehabilitation. A section of the Children’s Act states that detention must only be imposed as a last resort.

He said the six-year sentence will remain but he suspended the final 12 months.

The 20-year-old was required to enter into his own bond of €100 to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for the suspended period of his sentence plus two years post release.

Asked if he undertook to be so bound, the 20-year-old nodded and said “yeah”.

He was returned to Wheatfield Prison to continue serving out his sentence.