DPP v Byrne
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Birmingham P. |
| Judgment Date | 20 December 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] IECA 344 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Ireland) |
| Date | 20 December 2019 |
[2019] IECA 344
Court of Appeal
The President
Whelan J.
Kennedy J.
Sentencing – Dangerous driving causing death – Uncertainty – Appellant seeking to appeal against sentence – Whether the judge’s sentencing remarks clarified on what basis she approached sentencing
Facts: The appellant, Mr Byrne, on 11th May 2018, following a contested trial, was convicted of the offence of dangerous driving causing death and sentenced to a period of five years imprisonment along with lesser concurrent terms in relation to offences of deception and making a false statement. Mr Byrne appealed against both the conviction and the sentence imposed. The Court of Appeal, in a judgment delivered on 11th October 2019, dismissed the appeal against conviction. In the course of the sentence appeal, counsel for the appellant rehearsed arguments that he made at the sentence hearing in the Circuit Court. He suggested that it was difficult, or indeed, impossible, to be sure of the basis on which the jury decided to return a verdict of guilty. He said that, likewise, the judge’s sentencing remarks did not clarify on what basis she approached sentencing. In that context, he referred to DPP v Mahon [2019] IESC 24 and the obligation on the judge to set out his or her reasoning in clear terms.
Held by the Court that the complaints about uncertainty were overstated. The Court had no doubt but that the jury approached the case on the basis that for Mr Byrne to get behind the wheel of a car, suffering with the medical condition that he did, was dangerous. Equally, the Court had no doubt but that it was on that basis that the judge approached sentencing as she referred specifically to his knowledge that he was aware that he suffered from Usher’s Syndrome and aware that he should not be driving as aggravating factors. The Court held that the headline sentence identified was only consistent with a dangerous driving causing death where there were significant aggravating factors present and was not a sentence that would ever be considered if the case involved inattentiveness or slowness of reaction and no additional factors present. While firmly of the view that this was a serious case with significant aggravating factors present, the Court felt that the identification of a headline sentence of eight years was an error. In fairness to the appellant, the Court acknowledged the fact that he drove without incident for a prolonged period which may have lulled him into believing that he could get away with driving. In those circumstances, the Court believed that a headline sentence of six years rather than eight years would be more appropriate.
The Court held that, having had regard to the mitigating factors present, it would reduce the headline sentence from six years to four years. In addition, the Court held that it would suspend the final year of the sentence, believing that this would allow the Court to mark the gravity of the offence, while tailoring a sentence appropriate to the individual circumstances of the offender. The Court held that it would quash the sentence imposed in the Circuit Court and substitute a sentence of four years imprisonment with the final year suspended. The Court held that the disqualification order would remain as before.
Appeal allowed.
On 11th May 2018, following a contested trial, Mr, Byrne was convicted of the offence of dangerous driving causing death and sentenced to a period of five years imprisonment along with lesser concurrent terms in relation to offences of deception and making a false statement. Mr. Byrne appealed against both the conviction and the sentence imposed. This Court, in a judgment delivered on 11th October 2019, dismissed the appeal against conviction and this judgment now deals with the remaining sentence aspect.
The background facts are set out in detail in the course of the Court's judgment dealing with the conviction appeal and it is not proposed to repeat that exercise at this stage. Suffice at this stage to recall that the background to the case is to be found in a fatal road traffic accident which occurred on 16th October 2015 at Collins Avenue East which resulted in the death of the late Patricia Dunne. An issue at trial and on the appeal related to the fact that the appellant suffered from a condition known as Usher Syndrome Type 2, a condition that affects one's peripheral vision. The Trial Court had heard that he had been advised not to drive in 1997, and that he had told an optometrist in 2012 that he was not driving.
In terms of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial