DPP v Holland

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeFinlay C.J
Judgment Date10 March 1994
Neutral Citation1999 WJSC-CCA 1800
Docket Number85/89
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeal
Date10 March 1994
DPP v. HOLLAND
THE PEOPLE AT THE SUIT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
.v.
PATRICK HOLLAND
Applicant

1999 WJSC-CCA 1800

85/89

THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

Subject Headings:

*

Citations:

MCLOUGHLIN, APPL OF 1970 IR 197

1

RULING OF THE COURT (Ex-Tempore) delivered on the 10th day of March 1994 by Finlay C.J .

Finlay C.J
2

The Court is satisfied that in the events that happened the intention of the decision of this Court which was reached on the 21st May 1990 was not carried out by the warrant which is issued in pursuance of that decision and that as a result the Applicant was at risk as he asserts of serving a greater sentence than the Court intended. This is not the Court that heard the appeal but is of course the Court of Criminal Appeal which is an undivided body and in those circumstances the Court will remedy that potential injustice. What the Court will do is that it will now make an order not a warrant but an order directing that the order of conviction and sentence dated the 28th June 1989 in this case entered by the Special Criminal Court shall be varied so as to provide in lieu of a sentence of 10 years penal servitude to run from that date, a sentence of 7 years penal servitude to run from that date and the Court will declare that the Applicant is entitled to all the reduction and remission in that sentence which would be appropriate if he had been sentenced to 7 years from the very commencement.

3

With regard to the second issue that has arisen and been stated by Counsel on his behalf, namely the question of the possibility that had he not been bringing these proceedings he might have been moved to Shelton Abbey prison or open prison and where he would obtain a very significantly greater remission of sentence. That is not something this Court can under its jurisdiction alter but if the facts are as stated to this Court then obviously the Applicant should bring them to the attention of the Minister for Justice in whose jurisdiction the question of a remission to meet that situation would lie. The last thing the Court would like to indicate is that this case and the fact that we issued a warrant in it on an earlier occasion brings up a question which is of some importance as general practice and that is that in the case of Nicholas McLoughlin which was decided by this Court as reported in 1970 I.R. in a very substantial and detailed judgment, the Supreme Court held that it was not...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT