Robber Andrew Hanrahan 'rightly judged a danger to society'
A robber jailed indefinitely for holding a broken bottle to the neck of a teenager has failed to convince top judges he is not a danger to society.
Andrew Hanrahan (23), of no fixed abode, brandished two broken beer bottles at a 16-year-old and ordered him to hand over his phone, after accusing him of insulting his mother, in Wigston, in June 2008.
Hanrahan admitted robbery and was also convicted of two counts of burglary.
He was jailed indefinitely for public protection at Nottingham Crown Court in December the same year.
Cheap Van Insurance For 17,18 & 19 Year Old Drivers - Call Insure365 01782 898188, Free Legal Expenses Cover Included Valued at £25.00!
Terms: 1 Voucher Per Customer
Contact: 01782 898188
Valid until: Saturday, June 22 2013
He was ordered to serve at least two-and-a-half years before his release would be considered and will not be freed until the Parole Board is convinced the danger he poses to society has passed.
Now, judges at London's Court of Appeal have rejected a challenge by Hanrahan, saying he was rightly considered a high risk of harm to the public.
Mr Justice Wilkie said Hanrahan approached his teenage victim, who was sitting with two female friends on a bench, and asked for a cigarette at about 11pm on June 1, 2008.
"About 45 minutes later, he returned. He had two bottles of beer and broke them on railings," the appeal judge added.
Hanrahan held one bottle to the boy's neck and the other to his cheek, asking "What did you say about my mum?" before stealing his mobile phone.
Hanrahan, aged 18 at the time, was arrested within days. He initially denied the crime, saying "everybody had it in for him".
After eventually admitting what he had done, he was also found guilty of two burglaries at a property in Spencer Street, Oadby, that year.
The teenager had previous convictions for harassment, racially threatening or abusive behaviour and threatening to damage property.
A psychologist's report said Hanrahan had a "chaotic upbringing", showed signs of "personality disturbance" and "paranoid traits" and represented a high risk of "violent or acquisitive" crimes.
In the appeal, Hanrahan's lawyers said he had been wrongly branded as dangerous and should have been given a sentence with a definite release date.
But the appeal judge, sitting with Lord Justice Moore-Bick and Judge John Milford, said: "It cannot be said the sentencing judge, on the conclusion of dangerousness, erred in law."
Hanrahan's minimum term was also upheld.