DPP v Farrell
1991 WJSC-CCA 1835
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1984 S11(1)
DPP, PEOPLE V DENNIGAN UNREP CCA 27.11.89 3 FREWEN 253
DPP, PEOPLE V HEALY UNREP CCA 12.7.89 1989/5/1265
CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1984 S11
Imprisonment - Duration - Multiple offences - Consecutive sentence - Combined length of sentences - Reduction - Appellate court - Discretion - Criminal Justice Act, 1984, s. 11 - (137,138/88 - Court of Criminal Appeal - 21/7/90) -
|The People v. Farrell|
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY O'FLAHERTY J. ON THE 23rd DAY OF JULY 1990
This is an application for leave to appeal against concurrent sentences of 7½ years imprisonment and 7 years penal servitude imposed by His Honour Judge Moriarty on the 30th day of November 1988 and the consecutive sentences of effectively 8 years imprisonment imposed by His Honour Judge Lynch on the 2nd day of December 1988 making in all a total of 15½ years to be served by the applicant.
The sentences imposed by Judge Moriarty were in respect of an appalling attack on a man of 70 years of age who was stabbed in the course of a robbery and which resulted in his being marked for life. While on bail in respect of these charges the applicant committed an aggravated burglary at a fashion boutique terrorising staff members (some of whom were young women) who were stocktaking after normal business hours. Judge Lynch imposed sentences of effectively 8 years imprisonment in respect of these charges to commence at the lawful expiration of the sentences imposed by Judge Moriarty.
Section 11(1) of the Criminal Justice Act, 1984provides for the imposition of consecutive sentences in respect of offences committed by a person while on bail awaiting trial for another offence. This mandatory provision is to mark society's condemnation of the commission of further offences by an accused while on bail and must be strictly enforced. The Oireachtas has laid down this as a sanction and courts must, of course, give effect to it.
Counsel for the applicant in his restrained and able argument concedes that each of the sentences imposed in this case is appropriate to the serious crimes committed. However he submits that looking at the totality of the sentences (i.e. 15½ years) that the end result means there is an excessive punishment having regard to the particular crimes and the particular...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL