DPP v T.B.

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 06 November 1996
• Date: 06 November 1996
• Docket Number: [C.C.A. No. 9 of 1996]
• Court: Court of Criminal Appeal

Court of Criminal Appeal

[C.C.A. No. 9 of 1996]

The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v. T.B.

The People (at the suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions), Prosecutor

and

T.B.

Accused

Cases mentioned in this report:—

The People (D.P.P.) v. Healy [1990] 1 I.R. 388.

R. v. Lawrence (1989) 11 Cr. App. R. (S.) 580.

Criminal law - Consecutive sentences - Jurisdiction to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences considered - Principle of 'totality' - Discretion of trial judge Criminal Law (Rape) Act, 1981 (No. 10), s. 10 - Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act, 1990 (No. 32), s. 2.

Appeal against sentence.

The facts have been summarised in the headnote and are set out in detail in the judgment of Keane J., infra.

The application for leave to appeal was heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal (Keane, Barron and McGuinness JJ.) on the 21st October, 1996.

By s. 10 of the Criminal Law (Rape) Act, 1981, the common law offence of indecent assault against a female carried a penalty of 10 years imprisonment.

The Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act, 1990, provided that the offence of indecent assault should be known as sexual assault, and imposed a maximum term of 5 years imprisonment. The Act of 1990 also created the offence of aggravated sexual assault, carrying a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Section 10 of the Act of 1981 was repealed.

The accused pleaded guilty in the Circuit Court to 16 counts of indecent assault and 16 counts of sexual assault against his daughter and 2 counts of sexual assault against another girl. The trial judge imposed sentences of four years' imprisonment in respect of two of the counts of indecent assault against his daughter and ordered the sentences to run consecutively. The accused sought leave to appeal on the grounds that the imposition of consecutive sentences created the anomolous situation that he faced a more severe penalty than the maximum now permitted under the relevant legislation. He also contended that the trial judge had failed to give proper weight to his plea of guilty. On an application to the Court of Criminal Appeal for leave to appeal it was

Held by the Court of Criminal Appeal (Keane, Barron and McGuinness JJ.) in refusing leave to appeal, 1, that having regard to the gravity of the offences, the reduction in the sentences to 4 years gave sufficient weight to the accused's plea.

2. That the jurisdiction of the courts to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences where a person had been convicted of more than one offence at the trial was, in general, a non-statutory one, although it had been regulated by statute in particular contexts. The general principle was that concurrent sentences should be imposed for offences arising out of one incident or transaction, although there were exceptional circumstances where the sentencing tribunal might depart from the usual practice. Further, applying the "totality principle", the court should also consider the total sentence in relation to the totality of the offending and in relation to sentencing levels for other crimes. Thus it would be inappropriate to impose a series of consecutive sentences in respect of a number of motoring offences which would have the consequence of subjecting the offender to a disproportionately severe sentence and one that might be more severe than that imposed for manslaughter or rape.

The People (D.P.P.) v. Healy [1990] 1 I.R. 388 and R. v. Lawrence (1...