Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal allows appeal of unduly lenient two-year suspended sentences imposed alongside custodial sentences totalling five years' imprisonment, and substitutes a sentence of three years with two years suspended alongside the custodial sentences, on the grounds that in light of the facts that the respondent was on bail when he committed the offences, and committed the offences the subject matter of the said indictment when he was subject to suspended sentences, the sentencing judge did err in principle in that there was a clear departure from the norm.
Criminal law – sentencing – undue leniency – whether sentences totalling five years' imprisonment with two years suspended imposed for burglary were unduly lenient – whether the sentencing judge failed to identify an appropriate starting point at a sufficiently high level to reflect the nature of the said offences – s. 12 (1)(b) and (3) of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001 – s. 2 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1993 – respondent was on bail when he committed the offences – when the respondent committed the offences the subject matter of the said indictment he was subject to suspended sentences – s. 11 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1984 (as amended by s. 10 of the Bail Act, 1997 and as substituted in part by the Criminal Justice Act, 2007) – sentencing judge did err in principle, in that there was a clear departure from the norm – sentences of three years with two suspended substituted – appeal allowed.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
The only e-mail alert service for all Irish judgments over the past 13 years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now