DPP v Farrell

 
FREE EXCERPT

[2014] IECA 51

THE COURT OF APPEAL

Birmingham J.

Irvine J.

Edwards J.

269CJA/11
DPP v Farrell
In the matter Section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993
The People at the Suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions
v
Christopher Farrell
Respondent

269CJA/2011 - Birmingham Irvine Edwards - Court of Appeal - 17/12/2014 - 2014 14 4019 2014 IECA 51

CRIMINAL LAW (RAPE) ACT 1981 S4

DPP, PEOPLE v TIERNAN 1988 IR 250

NON-FATAL OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1997 S2

DPP v DROUGHT UNREP CHARLETON 14.5.2007 2007 IEHC 310

Sentencing – Rape – Undue leniency – Appellant seeking to appeal against sentence – Whether sentence was unduly lenient

1

Judgment of the Court ( ex tempore) delivered on the 17th day of December 2014 by Mr. Justice Birmingham

2

1. In this case the Director of Public Prosecutions has applied to this Court for a review of sentence imposed contending that the sentence imposed was unduly lenient. The sentence in question was imposed on the 28 th October, 2011 and the sentence hearing was consequent on a contested trial which took place between the 11 th and 22 nd July, 2011.

3

2. The offences in respect of which sentences were imposed, and which are now the subject of the request for review, were as follows:

4

(a) on count 1, an attempted rape in a motor vehicle on the 16 th September, 2007 of J.C., in respect of which a sentence of four years was imposed;

5

(b) an offence under s. 4 of the Criminal Law Rape Act, that is to say oral rape, on the 16 th September, 2007 of J.C., in respect of which a sentence of six years was imposed;

6

(c) Rape of J.C. on the same day, in respect of which a sentence of six years was imposed;

7

(d) an offence of false imprisonment of J.C. in respect of which a sentence of four years was imposed;

8

(e) a sexual assault on D.McG. on the same date.

9

All sentences were to be concurrent and all were to date from the 22 nd July, 2011.

10

3. In seeking the review, the Director is critical of the sentence hearing and the sentencing process, which the Director identifies as flawed. It is said that the aggravating features were dealt with in a summary or cursory fashion, whereas everything that could possibly be said in favour of the appellant was dealt with in great detail giving rise to a real imbalance. It said that there was a failure to focus on the fact of premeditation and planning, both of which were clearly features of the offences. It was said that there was inadequate attention to the impact that the offences had on the victims and an overstressing of the fact that the victim impact reports ended on what was seen as a hopeful note. It said that there...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL