DPP v Carmody

 
FREE EXCERPT

1988 WJSC-CCA 125

THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

McCarthy J

Barron J

Egan J

91/86
92/86
DPP v. CARMODY
THE PEOPLE AT THE SUIT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
v.
JAMES CARMODY

AND

JEREMIAH CARMODY
APPLICANTS

Citations:

LARCENY ACT 1916 S23(a)

CRIMINAL LAW JURISDICTION ACT 1976 S6

MALICIOUS DAMAGE ACT 1861 S51

AG, PEOPLE V O'CALLAGHAN 1966 IR 501

AG, PEOPLE V O'DRISCOLL FREWEN 1 351

PREVENTION OF CRIME ACT 1908 S10

RYAN & MAGEE IRISH CRIMINAL PROCESS P392

Synopsis:

STATUTE

Application

Obsolescence - Conviction - Sentence - Imprisonment - Period of sentence affected by element of preventative detention - Period reduced on appeal - ~See~ Criminal Law, sentence - (91–92/86 - C.C.A. - 14/12/87) - [1988] ILRM 370

|The People v. Carmody|

CRIMINAL LAW

Sentence

Imprisonment - Period - Choice - Preventative detention - Habitual criminal - Sentence reduced - On 28/4/86 the two accused brothers broke into a store at Greenmount in the city of Cork - They were caught in the act and arrested by gardai - At their trial in the Circuit Court each accused pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary contrary to s.23A of the Act of 1916 and to a charge of malicious damage contrary to s.51 of the Act of 1861 - The trial judge sentenced each accused to six years imprisonment - Each accused applied for leave to appeal against his sentence - The first accused had been convicted for similar offences on many occasions since the year 1968; he had received sentences of imprisonment for periods of three, six and twelve months - The second accused had 130 convictions dating from the year 1961; the longest period of imprisonment imposed on him was three years which had been imposed in 1983 - The accused were professional burglars whose only occupation appeared to have been burglary when they were not engaged in committing other crimes - Held that a sentence of imprisonment which had been imposed for a period selected on the basis of a need for preventative detention was not an authorised sentence, notwithstanding the provisions of s.10 of the Act of 1908 - Held that the applications would be granted and that the hearing of the applications would be treated as the hearing of the appeals - Held that the period of each sentence would be reduced to three years - Malicious Damage Act, 1861, s.51 - Prevention of Crime Act, 1908, s.10 - Larceny Act, 1916, s.23A - (91–92/86 - C.C.A. - 14/12/87) - [1988] ILRM 370

|The People v. Carmody|

1

Judgment of the Court delivered the 14th day of December 1987 by McCarthy J.

2

The applicants pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary contrary to section 23 A of the Larceny Act, 1916 as inserted by section 6 of the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act, 1976and to a charge of malicious damage contrary to section 51 of the Malicious Damage Act, 1861 both offences having been committed on the 28th April, 1986, when the applicants, who were brothers, broke into a store at Greenmount, in the city of Cork. As a result of a very prompt police reaction to the owners call, they were caught in the act.

3

James Carmody has a long list of convictions for similar offences going back as far as 1968 and, as described by the officer in charge "regularly going up the line.... up to the present day." He has received a series of sentences of imprisonment generally of 3, 6, 12 months duration.

4

Jeremiah Carmody has 130 previous convictions going back to 1961 and has served a total of...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL