DPP v Doolan
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Birmingham |
| Judgment Date | 18 December 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] IECA 22 |
| Docket Number | 247/14 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Ireland) |
| Date | 18 December 2014 |
[2014] IECA 22
THE COURT OF APPEAL
Peart J.
Birmingham J.
Edwards J.
Criminal law - Appeal against severity of sentence - Robbery - Sentence of two years imprisonment with one year suspended - Argued the case could and should have been dealt with by community service order or by an entirely suspended sentence - Alleged error in principle to require the appellant to serve a custodial sentence - Parity of sentence - Failure to seek and avail of probation report - Mitigating factors
Facts The appellant sought to appeal against severity of sentence. He was sentenced to two years imprisonment with one year suspended for the offence of robbery. He was involved in the robbery of a bookmaker where over €900 was taken. The appellant admitted he had loaned his co-accused a hoodie and that he gave him a lift to the premises in question. When apprehended his co-accused, Mr Fitzpatrick, indicated the appellant had a more active role. The judge considered the different accounts of both individuals and said it was a classic case of two thieves falling out. The judge said the involvement of Mr Fitzpatrick was at the mid-higher level whilst the appellant was at the lower-mid level. The appellant argued the case should and could have been dealt with by way of community service or by way of an entirely suspended sentence. It was contended an error of principle to require the appellant to serve a custodial sentence. It was further submitted that there was a disparity between the appellant"s situation and that of his co-accused, Mr Fitzpatrick. The appellant took issue with the fact the trial judge did not accede to the application for a probation report and instead listed the matter for sentence. The appellant argued said failure to seek and avail of a probation report constituted an error in the sentencing process.
Held It was clear the judge was conscious that the roles of both offenders were different. He put their participation at different points on the spectrum and that was reflected in the sentences he imposed. The judge considered and gave weight to the appellant"s mitigating factors. He was a first-time offender (despite some minor road traffic offences some ten years ago); he had a good work history and employment prospects and he was a married man with three children. The judge also took into account his early plea and the fact he provided meaningful cooperation in bringing him to justice. The judge concluded the trial judge erred in failing to seek a probation report and in not maximising the amount of information available to him when it came to performing the difficult and sensitive task of sentencing in this particular case. The judge proposed to direct the appellant to undertake 200 hours of community service as an alternative to twelve months imprisonment.
-12 months imprisonment substituted for 200 hours community service
- In the event that the appellant does not complete the 200 hours, he will be liable to serve the term of imprisonment
1. In this case the appellant, Mr. Doolan appeals against the severity of a sentence that was imposed on him in the Circuit Court on the 19 th November, 2014. On that occasion he received a sentence of two years imprisonment, with one year, the final year, suspended in respect of the offence of robbery. The robbery in question is one that occurred at Hacketts Bookmakers on the 5 th December, 2013.
2. The appeal is put very clearly and firmly on the basis that this is a case that could and should have been dealt with by way of a community service order or by way of an entirely suspended sentence and it is said that the error in principle was to require the appellant to serve a custodial sentence.
3. There are really two arguments that are made. The first is that there was an insufficient distinction drawn between the appellant's situation and the situation of a coaccused Mr. Fitzpatrick and we will return to Mr. Fitzpatrick's role in this in a moment. The second argument is that the consideration that was given was inadequate because it did not sufficiently address the prospects of dealing with this other than by way of an immediate custodial sentence. In that regard attention is drawn to the fact that the defence at the arraignment stage, when the plea of guilty, which was an early plea, was entered, had sought a probation report and that was an issue that was returned to at the time of the sentencing hearing.
4. The trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DPP v Ficarelli
...Report 17 In contending that the judge erred in not directing a probation report, the appellant refers to the case of DPP v Doolan [2014] IECA 22. The appellant says that while the judge may have been in a position to operate on the basis that the appellant had not offended previously and w......
-
DPP v Vasile Marin
...offence such as the present one. Finally, we were referred to our own decision in The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v Doolan [2014] IECA 22 as a supposedly relevant Discussion and Decision 21 We reject without hesitation the suggestion that the sentencing judge over assessed the......