Court of Appeal dismisses appeal against theft sentence, upholding headline term and time served credit calculation.

APPROVED JUDGMENT

THE COURT OF APPEAL

Record Number: 0287/2024

Neutral Citation Number [2025] IECA 283

McCarthy J. Kennedy J. Butler J.

BETWEEN/

THE PEOPLE AT THE SUIT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

RESPONDENT/

- AND -

Rebecca McEnroe.

APPELLANT

JUDGMENT of the Court delivered (ex tempore) on the 13th day of

November 2025 by Ms. Justice Isobel Kennedy.

1. On the 31st of October 2024, the appellant was sentenced to 3 ½ years imprisonment with six months suspended on conditions, in respect of 6 counts of theft contrary to Section 4 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud) Offences Act, 2001. A further 14 counts of theft were taken into consideration.

Factual Background

2. The offences occurred between January and December 2023, where the appellant entered various pharmacies, cosmetic shops and grocery stores, and stole merchandise.

3. In relation to count 5 on the indictment, a security guard was instructed to watch the appellant as she walked around Boots Pharmacy on Baggott Street, County Dublin. When the security guard began to question the appellant and tried to prevent her from leaving the shop, the appellant told the security guard, "I owe you nothing. I'm Irish. This shop is mine. I'm not going to show you my bags. I do whatever I want". The appellant called the security guard a racial slur, among other names, and laughed as she pushed upon the door and left the premises. The thefts were reported to the Gardaí and CCTV evidence was obtained in almost all of the cases, from which the appellant was identified.

4. The total value of the items stolen was €11,453.17. The appellant pleaded guilty to one count of theft on the 31st of July 2024, and to five further counts on the 31st of October 2024.

Personal Circumstances of the Appellant

5. The appellant’s father left the family home when she was young. She has struggled with addiction for most of her life, beginning at aged 13 years. She was 44 years of age at the time of sentencing and has 3 children in the care of her parents. When the appellant’s youngest child was born, she had been doing well but had eventually relapsed. Counsel for the appellant told that court that the appellant had a history of employment and had previously graduated from Drugs Court in 2018.

6. The appellant has 133 previous convictions, 122 for theft offences. The remaining convictions consisted of failure to appear in court and misuse of drugs offences. All were convictions from the District Court.

Sentencing Remarks

7. The sentencing judge noted the number of counts and the value of the goods stolen, her previous convictions and that she was on bail. The judge remarked that the appellant was a “prolific and recidivist shoplifter”, and that the appellant’s criminal record is indicative of “a person who’s struggled all their life with an addiction which clearly has overwhelmed them”.

8. She took account of the appellant’s early guilty plea, her full acceptance of responsibility, her history of addiction and that she was engaging well at school and work while in custody.

9. A headline sentence of 5 years imprisonment was nominated and reduced to 3 ½ years in light of the mitigating factors, with the final 6 months of the sentence to be suspended to incentivise rehabilitation. The sentence was backdated to the 31st of July 2024.

Grounds of Appeal

10. The appellant contends that the judge erred in the headline sentence nominated and in failing to give full credit for time served.

Submissions of the Appellant

11. It is said that the offending was on the lower scale for theft offences. The offences were committed at commercial premises and consisted of minimal interaction with members of staff, the value of the items was relatively low in some cases, and the appellant made no attempt to conceal her identity during the commission of the offences.

12. It is accepted that the discount afforded for mitigation was appropriate.

13. Furthermore, it is submitted that the sentencing judge indicated she would give the appellant credit for time served solely in relation to these offences, which by the appellant’s calculation amounts to roughly 180 days. However, it is noted that the judge in fact backdated the sentence to the 31st of July 2024, whereas 180 days would have led to the 30th of April 2024.

Submissions of the Respondent

14. The respondent submits that the sentencing judge did not err in law or in principle in setting the headline sentence.

15. Regarding credit for time served, the judge indicated that she was giving the appellant the credit that she could give her by backdating the sentence to the 31st of July 2024 - the date the appellant first entered her guilty plea.

Discussion and Decision

16. The contention that the headline sentence of 5 years is unwarranted is not borne out on an examination of the aggravating factors. It cannot be ignored that the appellant was sentenced for 20 offences of theft. The judge rightly noted that she is a “prolific and recidivist shoplifter”. The judge was scrupulously fair in her assessment of the gravity of the global offending and took care to ensure that the recidivistic nature of the offending did not cause her to nominate an inappropriate headline sentence. The value of the goods stolen, her conduct regarding count 5 on the indictment, that she was on bail at the time of offending and of course, the fact that 14 counts were taken into consideration all served to elevate the gravity of the offending. There is also an element of general deterrence which must be considered in the context of this type of offending.

17. Considering the issue of credit, the judge determined to backdate the sentence to the date the first plea was entered. Whilst initially the judge indicated she would give her credit for time served exclusively on this matter, she ultimately determined to backdate to the 31st July 2024. We do not find an error in principle in this respect. The judge was aware of the position and made her decision accordingly.

18. This was a considered sentence where the judge properly weighed and balanced the gravity of the offences and the circumstances of the appellant, leading to a proportionate sentence.

19. We find no error in principle and accordingly the appeal is dismissed.