DPP v T. S

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeO'Donnell J.,Charleton J.,O'Malley J.
Judgment Date24 February 2020
Neutral Citation[2020] IESCDET 25
Date2020
CourtSupreme Court
Docket NumberS:AP:IE:2019:000227 Bill No. CCDP0066/2017
THE PEOPLE AT THE SUIT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

AND

T. S.
APPLICANT

[2020] IESCDET 25

O'Donnell J.

Charleton J.

O'Malley J.

S:AP:IE:2019:000227

2019 No. 12

Bill No. CCDP0066/2017

THE SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO WHICH ARTICLE 34.5.3° OF THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES

RESULT: The Court does not grant leave to the Applicant to appeal to this Court from the Court of Appeal

REASONS GIVEN:

ORDER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED

COURT: Court of Appeal
DATE OF JUDGMENT OR RULING: 15 th October, 2019
DATE OF ORDER: 15 th October, 2019
DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 20 th December, 2019
THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 23 rd December, 2019 AND WAS IN TIME.
General Considerations:
1

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 33 rd 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 B.S. v Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESCDET 134 and in a unanimous judgment of a full Court delivered by O'Donnell J. in Quinn Insurance Ltd. v PricewaterhouseCoopers [2017] IESC 73, [2017] 3 I.R. 812. It follows that it is unnecessary to revisit the new constitutional architecture for the purposes of this determination.

2

Furthermore, the application for leave filed and the respondent's notice 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.

Background:
3

After being convicted by a jury of raping and sexually assaulting his wife, the applicant was sentenced by the trial judge to five years imprisonment with the final two suspended. This figure was reached on the basis of a headline sentence identified as six years, the reduction by one year to take account of mitigation and the suspension of two years to take account of the fact that the applicant's wife had made a plea for clemency. The applicant appealed against the severity of this sentence, while the prosecution applied for a review on grounds of undue leniency.

4

In a written judgment delivered on the 15 th October 2019, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had not erred in his...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT