Court of Appeal: Man convicted of robbing escorts in two separate incidents has sentence reduced

About this case:

• Judgment:
  External link

Delivering the judgment of the three-judge Court, Mr Justice Sheehan stated that the trial judge had erred in finding the headline sentence to be one of ten years. With an emphasis on the consistency in sentencing, and referring to the Irish Sentencing Information website, the Court of Appeal found that a headline sentence of eight years was more appropriate, reduced to six with mitigation.

Background

In 2015, Mr Gediminas Zigmantas (35) pleaded guilty to falsely imprisoning and robbing an escort at the Metropole Hotel in Cork in November 2013 – for which he was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment.

Mr Zigmantas had “engaged the services of the injured party who was operating as an escort from a hotel room in Cork”. Along with an accomplice, Mr Zigmantas tied her hands and feet, put a towel over her head and placed her in the bath. Following this they searched her room finding €4,000 in cash and other property valued at €620 which they took with them as they left the hotel.

The Court heard that Mr Zigmantas had been in Ireland for fifteen years, with two children living with his partner in Douglas.

Sentencing

The Court heard that at the time of his sentencing in 2015, Mr Zigmantas had 15 previous convictions under the Road Traffic Act and a previous conviction for robbing another escort at a hotel in Ennis in similar circumstances, which occurred subsequent to the one in Cork.

For the robbery in Ennis, Mr Zigmantas was sentenced to five years imprisonment with the final eighteen months of that sentence suspended and he was serving this sentence when the sentence of eight years’ imprisonment was imposed at Cork Circuit Court.

The sentencing judge described Mr Zigmantas’ offence as a “very nasty” one, adding that “anything involving imprisonment is particularly heinous” and that there were “serious aggravating factors” given the level of planning and organisation involved in Mr Zigmantas’ actions. The sentencing judge stated that if Mr Zigmantas “had been convicted by a jury… a sentence of ten years plus would be in order” given the level of violence used and the planning. IN addition, the judge stated that Mr Zigmantas’ guilty plea was not an early one, and that he did not show any great remorse.

In all the circumstances, the judge stated that the appropriate sentence was an eight year sentence without deduction to date from the date of Mr Zigmantas’ arrest.

Court of Appeal

Counsel for Mr Zigmantas challenged the severity of the sentence under three headings, however the principal focus was that the sentencing judge incorrectly identified the headline sentence as being in excess of ten years imprisonment; and that the headline sentence should have been eight years.

Mr Justice Sheehan stated that the original sentence hearing was short and that the transcript was “silent on a number of matters”. In particular, Justice Sheehan took into consideration the fact that “the victim was able to free herself in 20 minutes and while she was undoubtedly terrified her physical injuries were minimal”.

With an emphasis on the importance of achieving a degree of consistency in sentencing, Justice Sheehan referred to the Irish Sentencing Information web site which in January 2013 published a detailed analysis of sentences imposed for robbery over a ten-year period.

Considering the information available on this site, Justice Sheehan stated that the Court was satisfied that “the headline sentence identified by the trial judge was somewhat excessive when compared to sentences for robbery imposed or upheld by the Court of Criminal Appeal between the years 2003 and 2013”.

Accordingly, the Court found that there was an error in the sentencing judge’s approach.

The Court also considered the further submissions that Mr Zigmantas had been making considerable progress in prison, attending school, and studying music; and also that he had reconnected with his family in Douglas.

We will take these matters into account in the sentence that we now propose to impose.

In accordance with the sentencing principles suggested by the Supreme Court in The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v. M. 3 I.R. 306, the Court identified the appropriate headline sentence as eight years’ imprisonment.

Given the plea of guilty, cooperation with the gardaí, and the progress that he made in prison, the Court decided to mitigate the headline sentence to six years imprisonment.