People (DPP v Healy

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1990
• Date: 01 January 1990
• Docket Number: [1988 No. 20 C.C.A.]
• Court: Court of Criminal Appeal

Court of Criminal Appeal

[1988 No. 20 C.C.A.]

The People (D.P.P.) v. Healy

The People at the suit of The Director of Public Prosecutions

and

Noel Healy

Case mentioned in this report:—

People (Attorney General) v. Poyning [1972] I.R. 402.

Criminal law - Sentence - Applicant and co-accused convicted of offence - Offence committed by co-accused while on bail - Co-accused serving sentences in respect of previous offences - Requirement that sentence of imprisonment in respect of offence committed on bail be consecutive to sentence passed for previous offence - Co-accused sentenced to shorter terms of imprisonment than applicant - Whether in determining appropriate sentence court should have regard to fact than sentence to be passed must be consecutive - Whether disparity of sentences between co-defendants a ground of appeal against sentence - Criminal Justice Act, 1984 (No. 22) s. 11.

Application for leave to appeal.

The facts have been summarised in the headnote and appear in the judgment of McCarthy J., post.

On the 15th December, 1986, the applicant pleaded guilty before the Dublin Circuit Court (Roe J.) to counts of conspiracy to rob and conspiracy to commit false imprisonment. He was sentenced to two terms of eight years' imprisonment, the sentences to run concurrently.

The applicant's application for leave to appeal against sentence, by notice dated the 26th January, 1988, was heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal on the 26th June, 1989.

Section 11, sub-s. 1 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1984, provides that any sentence of imprisonment passed on a person for an offence committed while he was on bail shall be consecutive on any sentence passed on him for a previous offence or, if he is sentenced in respect of two or more previous offences, on the sentence last due to expire.

The applicant was one of five persons charged with a series of offences arising from a conspiracy to carry out an armed robbery. At his trial the applicant pleaded guilty to counts of conspiracy to commit false imprisonment and conspiracy to rob and he was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment on each count, the sentences to run concurrently.

Three of the applicant's co-conspirators, at separate trials, pleaded guilty to various counts including the count of conspiracy to rob. Each of them had been on bail at the time of the commission of the offence and had commenced terms of imprisonment in respect of previous offences. Two co-conspirators were sentenced to terms of two years' imprisonment and the third was sentenced to a term of four years' imprisonment, each such sentence to be consecutive on the sentences which they were already serving. In each case the judge passing sentence had stated that the sentence imposed would have been greater were it not for the fact that it was consecutive on the sentences previously passed.

On the applicant's application for leave to appeal against sentence, on the grounds that the sentence imposed on him was disproportionate to those passed on his co-conspirators, it was

Held by the Court of Criminal Appeal (McCarthy, Carroll and Barron JJ.) in dismissing the application, 1, that, in determining the appropriate sentence to pass on a defendant convicted of an offence committed on bail who is already serving a sentence in respect of a previous offence, a court should not have regard to the fact that the sentence to be passed by it must be consecutive on the previous sentence.

2. That, however, in the case of serious offences, if the aggregate of consecutive sentences would be considered to be excessive and to impose a manifestly unjust punishment on a defendant, a court would be entitled to reduce the consecutive sentence or sentences passed by it accordingly.

3. That it followed that a...