DPP v McKenna (No. 2)
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 09 May 2002 |
| Date | 09 May 2002 |
| Docket Number | [C.C.A. No. 29 C.J.A. of 2000] |
| Court | Court of Criminal Appeal |
Court of Criminal Appeal
Criminal law - Sentence - Consecutive or concurrent sentences - Appeal against leniency of sentence - Mitigating factors - Discretion of trial judge - Depravity of offences - Period of resumed offending - Whether sentence too lenient - Criminal Justice Act, 1993 (No. 6), s. 2 - Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act, 1990 (No. 32), s. 2(1) - Criminal Law (Rape) Act, 1981 (No. 10).
The respondent was convicted in respect of 31 sexual offences and received a three year sentence of imprisonment in respect of each count, all of which were to run concurrently. The applicant appealed against the leniency of that sentence.
Held by the Court of Criminal Appeal (Geoghegan, Carroll and O'Neill JJ.), in quashing the sentence and imposing like sentences of three years on each count with a consecutive element resulting in a six year sentence to be served, 1, that given the approach which the Circuit Court Judge adopted, the court considered that he fell into error in directing that all the sentences were to run concurrently. The learned judge had a discretion which in the circumstances he ought to have exercised to impose a consecutive element in the sentences.
2. That given the view the Circuit Judge took that each of the offences should attract the same length of sentence, the overall sentence quite obviously did not reflect the "circumstances of depravity" which attended many of the continuous indecent and sexual assaults in this case, especially in the context of relations between a father and an underage daughter.
The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v. Z. (Unreported, Court of Criminal Appeal, 14th March, 1995) approved.
3. That there had been decisions which indicated that the imposition of consecutive sentences should be the exception rather than the rule and in particular concurrent sentences had been approved in some instances where there had been a series of sexual offences.
The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v. Coogan (Unreported Court of Criminal Appeal, 29th July, 1997) and The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v. Z. (Unreported, Court of Criminal Appeal, 14th March, 1995) considered.
4. That it would be an injustice to the public not to impose consecutive sentences in this case, taking into account the period of resumed offending after an opportunity for reflection and the particularly depraved nature of the offences.
Cases mentioned in this report:-
The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v. Coogan (Unreported, Court of Criminal Appeal, 29th July, 1997).
The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v. Z. (Unreported, Court of Criminal Appeal, 14th March, 1995).
Appeal pursuant to s. 2 of Criminal Justice Act, 1993.
The facts of the case have been summarised in the headnote and are more fully set out in the judgment of the court, delivered by Geoghegan J. infra.
This was an appeal by the applicant against the leniency of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DPP v Whelan
...SUIT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS v. PETER WHELAN Applicant Citations: EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ART 3 DPP V MCKENNA 2002 2 IR 345 2002/9/2194 Synopsis: CRIMINAL LAW Appeal Conviction - Sentencing - Murder and attempted murder - Mandatory life and 15 years to run consec......
-
DPP v F.E.
...sentence as opposed to making all sentences concurrent will be the existence of a gap in time. In The People (DPP) v McKenna (No. 2) [2002] 2 IR 345 there were 31 offences of sexual violence against the accused's own daughter. On an appeal on leniency, the Court of Criminal Appeal regarded......
-
DPP v F.E.
...sentence as opposed to making all sentences concurrent will be the existence of a gap in time. In The People (DPP) v McKenna (No. 2) [2002] 2 IR 345 there were 31 offences of sexual violence against the accused's own daughter. On an appeal on leniency, the Court of Criminal Appeal regarded......
-
DPP v M.J.
...the gravity of sequential offending against one victim – see, for example, the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal in People (DPP) v. McKenna (No.2) [2002] 2 I.R. 345. The court has a duty to impose a sentence that fairly reflects both the gravity of the accused's behaviour and his cu......