DPP v McKenna
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 06 February 2002 |
| Docket Number | [C.C.A. No. 29 CJA of 2000] |
| Date | 06 February 2002 |
| Court | Court of Criminal Appeal |
Court of Criminal Appeal
Criminal law - Practice and procedure - Review of sentence - Application by prosecutor for review of sentence - Statutory time limit for making of application - Whether application made in time - Criminal Justice Act, 1993 (No. 6), s. 2(2).
Section 2(2) of the Criminal Justice Act, 1993 provides as follows:-
"An application under this section shall be made, on notice given to the convicted person, within 28 days from the day on which the sentence was imposed."
Pursuant to s. 2 of the Act of 1993, the prosecutor applied for a review of sentences imposed upon the respondent in respect of his conviction for sexual offences.
It was submitted on behalf of the prosecutor that the notice of application, having been made and served within the meaning of s. 2(2) of the Act of 1993 on the 28th day inclusive of the date of sentence, had been made in time. An employee in the Chief Prosecution Solicitor's office gave evidence of her having attempted to lodge the notice in the office of the Court of Criminal Appeal on the 28th day and of the refusal of the office of the Court of Criminal Appeal to accept it on that date on procedural grounds.
The respondent contended that s. 2(2) of the Act of 1993 had not been complied with in that, although the notice had been served on the respondent on that day, it had not been lodged in the office of the Court of Criminal Appeal until the following day.
Held by the Court of Criminal Appeal (Geoghegan, Carroll and O'Neill JJ.), that delivery of the notice by the employee in the Chief Prosecution Solicitor's office to the proper officer at the office of the Court of Criminal Appeal on the 18th December, 2000, constituted the initiation of the application for the purposes of the time-limit provided for by s. 2(2) of the Act of 1993. The onus was on the respondent to satisfy the court that this was not so and this onus had not been discharged.
There are no cases mentioned in this report.
Application to review sentence.
The facts have been summarised in the headnote and are more fully set out in the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal delivered by Geoghegan J., infra.
On the 21st November, 2000, the respondent was convicted and sentenced to three years'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DPP v McCabe
...2001/4/912 TAX CONSOLIDATION ACT 1997 933(1)(c) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 1957 PRITAM v S RUSSELL & SONS LTD 1973 1 ALL ER 617 DPP v MCKENNA 2002 1 IR 347 CRIMINAL LAW Practice & procedure Time limit - Review of sentence - Application by prosecutor for review of sentence - Statutory time limi......
-
Minister for Justice and Equality v Dziugas; Dziugas v The Governor of Cloverhill
...construed accordingly'. 18 Counsel also relied upon the decisions of Hegarty v Labour Court [1990] 10 ELR 198 and People (DPP) v McKenna [2002] 1 IR 347. In the Hegarty case, the meaning of the expression 'shall be lodged in Court' in s. 8(1) of the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act 1974 was h......
-
DPP v G. McC
... ... for mitigation in concurrency of such sentences - Maximum sentences imposed - Whether appropriate (184/2002 - Court of Criminal Appeal - 31/10/2003) People (DPP) v McC (G) - [2003] 3 IR 609 Citations: CHILD TRAFFICKING & PORNOGRAPHY ACT 1998 S6(1) DPP V MCKENNA 2002 2 IR 345 2002/9/2194 CHILD TRAFFICKING & PORNOGRAPHY ACT 1998 S5(1)(A) DPP V TIERNAN 1988 IR 250 R V OLIVER & ORS 2003 1 CAR 28 SEX OFFENDERS ACT 1997 (UK) ... 1 Judgment of the Court delivered by Geoghegan J. on 31st day of ... ...
-
DPP v James Maher
...The director cites the case ofDPP v G McC [2003] 3 I.R.609 in which it discusses People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v McKenna [2002] 1 I.R. 347. The court noted in the former case that the undoubted discretion to make sentences consecutive is exercised sparingly. However, referencing ......