DPP v T. S
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Judge | O'Donnell J.,Charleton J.,O'Malley J. |
| Judgment Date | 24 February 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] IESCDET 25 |
| Date | 2020 |
| Docket Number | S:AP:IE:2019:000227 Bill No. CCDP0066/2017 |
AND
[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
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. |
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.
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.
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.
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