Quinn, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This case concerns a renewed application for leave to appeal against a sentence imposed by Her Honour Judge Crawford on 19 November 2024. The applicant was originally convicted of offences committed on 4 September 2022, including conspiracy to rob, robbery, possession of an offensive weapon with intent to commit an indictable offence, and receiving stolen goods. The charges arose from a single course of offending involving two attempted robberies and one completed robbery of off-licence premises in Belfast.

Initially, the applicant pleaded not guilty to all charges but later changed pleas to guilty on two counts (conspiracy to rob and robbery), with the remaining counts left on the books. The sentencing judge treated the robbery count as the lead offence and considered the conspiracy count as an aggravating factor. Sentencing was conducted on a joint enterprise basis with the co-accused. The judge identified several aggravating factors, including the use of a knife, premeditation and planning, and the applicant's extensive criminal record of 167 prior convictions. Mitigating factors included a 10-year gap in offending, remorse, efforts to address addiction, and family responsibilities, notably the applicant’s role as father to seven children, including an infant daughter with a brain injury.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the starting point of eight years’ imprisonment for the lead offence was excessive in the circumstances of the case.
2. Whether the sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to the applicant’s domestic circumstances and the impact of the custodial sentence on his family.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The starting point of eight years was too high given the circumstances of the offending and the applicant’s personal circumstances.
• The sentencing judge did not adequately weigh the applicant’s domestic responsibilities and the impact of imprisonment on his family, particularly his infant daughter with a brain injury and other dependent children.
• Reliance was placed on recent case law, including R v Devlin, to argue that the impact on family should have resulted in a further reduction after the starting point and plea discount.
• Reference was also made to R v Ruddy to support the argument for a separate reduction for domestic circumstances post plea discount.

Respondent's Arguments

• The sentencing guidelines applied by the judge were correct and the starting point fell within the established range for a primary participant in a knife robbery.
• The judge gave appropriate and thorough consideration to the applicant’s domestic circumstances and family responsibilities, as reflected in the sentencing remarks and pre-sentence reports.
• The plea discount applied was generous and the overall sentence was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.
• The decision in R v Ruddy does not impose an obligation to apply a further reduction for domestic circumstances after plea discount where those circumstances have already been considered.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully examined the sentencing exercise undertaken by the sentencing judge. It confirmed that the applicable sentencing guidelines were correctly identified and applied, particularly those relating to knife-point robbery of commercial premises by primary participants. The court noted the applicant’s significant culpability and the serious harm caused to victims, including psychological trauma.

The judge’s starting point of eight years was at the lower end of the approved range for such offences, reflecting mitigating factors including the applicant’s lesser role in brandishing the weapon and issuing threats, and his plea of guilty.

Regarding the applicant’s domestic circumstances, the court found the sentencing judge had conducted a comprehensive and detailed analysis, fully informed by pre-sentence reports and expert input from the Trust concerning the applicant’s infant daughter’s needs and rehabilitation plans. The judge appropriately balanced these mitigating factors against the gravity of the offences and the need for punishment and deterrence.

The court rejected the appellant’s submission that a further reduction for domestic circumstances was required after the plea discount, holding that such an approach risks double counting. The court held that where domestic circumstances have been properly considered before setting the starting point, no additional reduction is mandated.

Overall, the court concluded that the sentence imposed was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

The direct effect is that the sentence of five years and nine months’ imprisonment, divided equally between custody and licence, remains in force. No new precedent was established, and the decision reinforces the principle that sentencing judges have discretion in weighing mitigating factors such as domestic circumstances within the established sentencing framework, without obligation to grant additional reductions beyond those already accounted for in the starting point and plea discount.