DPP v Quinn

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Ms. Justice Baker
• Judgment Date: 05 February 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] IECA 39
• Docket Number: Record No. 264/2018
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)
• Date: 05 February 2019

BETWEEN/

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

RESPONDENT

- AND -

MARTIN QUINN

APPELLANT

[2019] IECA 39

Record No. 264/2018

THE COURT OF APPEAL

Sentencing – Robbery – Extension of time – Applicant seeking an extension of time within which to bring an appeal against sentence – Whether there had been a satisfactory explanation offered for the period of delay

Facts: The applicant, Mr Quinn, was sentenced to four years in respect of three different offences; robbery, the taking of a vehicle and a drugs offence. He applied to the Court of Appeal for an extension of time within which to lodge an appeal against sentence.

Held by the Court that the affidavit evidence before it was in very broad terms and was entirely generic; it did not engage with the circumstances of the delay and it did not engage with the basis on which the appeal was sought to be brought.

The Court held that no extension of time should be allowed.

Application refused.

JUDGMENT (ex tempore) of the Court delivered on the 5th day of February 2019 by Ms. Justice Baker

1 This is an application by Mr. Quinn for an extension of time within which to lodge an appeal and having considered the circumstances and the arguments made by counsel we are satisfied that no extension of time should be allowed.

2 The circumstances are as follows. Mr. Quinn was sentenced to four years, two and a half years on count, one and a half year in respect of three different offences, one was robbery, the other taking of a vehicle and the other a drugs offence.

3 It seems that the matters in issue were quite serious and the accused did brandish a firearm at the scene. That is probably not a matter that adds had any weight to our consideration as it was not before us on evidence from either side.

4 The appeal that is sought to be brought is an appeal against sentence.

5 The affidavit evidence before us is in very broad terms and is entirely generic. It does not engage with the circumstances of the delay and it does not engage with the basis on which the appeal is sought to be brought.

6 This does not meet any of the tests set out in the case law which are very well established. The law was considered in great detail by the Supreme Court and the DPP v. Eamonn Kelly, a case in 1982. It is clear that the overriding interests are the interests of justice. The interests of justice now, having regard to recent statutory provisions, must be held to include the interests of the victims. The explanation of the delay is always a factor that the court will have regard to. The explanation for the delay in this case is not sufficient to meet even a broad test or even a flexible test.

7 The evidence is, and there is evidence form Mr. O'Connor the solicitor for Mr. Quinn and from Mr. Quinn himself, that there was some difficulty communicating with Mr. O'Connor in the twenty-eight days after the sentence was imposed at the end of July 2017. That twenty-eight days were in the month of August. Mr. O'Connor says that during that time he had some turnover of staff and during that time he was on annual leave. That deals with a month only of the delay and that is a very small amount of the delay in the light of the fact that the delay is a year, probably in fact more accurately fourteen months, but allowing that the time between the lodging of the papers and the preparation of the papers occurred during the long...