Court of Appeal dismisses appeal by Director of Public Prosecutions of two allegedly unduly lenient sentences, comprising fines of €15,000 each for failure as an employer to ensure so far as was reasonably practicable that persons not being employees were not exposed to risk to their safety, health or welfare, on the ground that, as the respondent was not notified in the manner set out in the statutory procedure or within the prescribed time-limit, the application for review of the sentence could not be advanced.
Criminal law – sentencing – appeal against two sentences comprising fines of €15,000 each for failure as an employer to ensure so far as was reasonably practicable that persons not being employees were not exposed to risk to their safety, health or welfare on the grounds they were unduly lenient – preliminary objection – not been shown that the respondent was notified in the manner required by s.10(1)(d) of that Act – not within the time-limit prescribed by s.2(2) of that Act – s. 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 as amended by the Court of Appeal Act 2014 – s. 12 and s. 77 of the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 – Safety Health and Welfare at Work (Construction) Regulations, 2006 – Regulation 16(d) of the Safety Health and Welfare at Work (Construction) Regulations, 2006 – means of notification to a convicted person who is a body corporate which is permitted by the statute is notification in accordance with s. 10(1)(d) – whether there is an inherent jurisdiction to deem service good – clerical staff at a solicitors firm might well be regarded as having ostensible authority to accept service – lawfulness of its invocation subject to two express statutory preconditions – giving of notice to the convicted person in a specified manner and within a specified time – objection upheld – appeal dismissed