DPP v Murray
 IESCDET 52
THE SUPREME COURT
Sentencing – Rape – Undue leniency – Applicant seeking to appeal against sentence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interfering with the applicant’s sentence on the basis of perceived inadequacy
|COURT: Court of Appeal|
|DATE OF JUDGMENT: 3rd November, 2017|
|DATE OF ORDER: 3rd November, 2017|
|DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 11th December, 2018|
|THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON THE 4th JANUARY, 2018 AND WAS IN TIME.|
The general principles applied by this Court in determining whether to grant or refuse leave to appeal having regard to the criteria incorporated into the Constitution as a result of the 33rd Amendment have now been considered in a large number of determinations and are fully addressed in both a determination issued by a panel consisting of all of the members of this Court in Price. Accordingly it is unnecessary to revisit the new constitutional architecture for the purpose of this determination.and in a unanimous judgment of a full Court delivered by O'Donnell J. in
The application for leave filed, and the respondent's notice thereto, are published along with this determination (subject only to any redaction required by law) and it is therefore unnecessary to set out the position of the parties in detail.
The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Court of Appeal whereby that Court increased sentences imposed by the Central Criminal Court on a number of counts including rape, aggravated sexual assault, false imprisonment and threatening to kill and abduction of the complainant's...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL