The People (At the Suit of the DPP) v B.H.
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Woulfe |
| Judgment Date | 28 April 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] IECA 129 |
| Docket Number | Record No. 2020/ 259 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Ireland) |
| Date | 28 April 2021 |
[2021] IECA 129
The President
Woulfe J.
Edwards J.
Record No. 2020/ 259
THE COURT OF APPEAL
Sentencing – Murder – Severity of sentence – Appellant seeking to appeal against sentence – Whether sentence was unduly severe
Facts: The appellant, a minor, pleaded guilty to murder on the 7th September, 2020. It was accepted by the respondent, the Director of Public Prosecutions, that the plea was entered by the appellant at an early stage of the proceedings, without the taking of a trial date and in advance of any disclosure being sought. A sentence of life imprisonment (with a review after ten years) was imposed by the Central Criminal Court on the 16th December, 2020. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal against the severity of the sentence imposed on the grounds that the sentencing judge gave excessive weight to the aggravating factors in the case, and either failed to have regard to certain mitigating factors which were not referred to, or gave inadequate weight to certain mitigating factors which were referred to.
Held by the Court that there was no error of principle by the sentencing judge. In the Court’s view, the case involved a very serious offence where the sentencing judge was entitled to find that the bringing of the knife to the scene was a significant aggravating factor on the evidence before him, which meant that this was offending of such seriousness that it had to be met with a significant custodial sentence. The Court was satisfied that significant credit was given to the appellant for the manner in which he met the case from the outset. As regards the absence of previous convictions, while the sentencing judge did not specifically reference this mitigating factor, the Court accepted the respondent’s submission that the sentencing judge was clearly dealing with the appellant on the basis of him being a child without previous convictions, and on the basis that he was not at the upper end of young persons who might come before him charged with such an offence. As regards the appellant’s capacity to rehabilitate, which he had demonstrated during his detention in Oberstown Children Detention Campus, the Court held that it was clear from the transcript that the sentencing judge gave careful consideration to the contents of all the reports before the Court and was most anxious to build rehabilitation into the sentencing regime. The Court was satisfied that the sentencing judge took into sufficient account the expressions of remorse, the developmental deficits of the appellant and his chaotic family background. While the Court accepted that The People (DPP) v D.G. [2005] IECCA 75 was a relevant comparator, and that consistency of sentence is a desirable objective, the Court was of the view that the outcome of one comparator case cannot necessarily be decisive in a later case. The Court was of the view that the sentence imposed in this case, taking account of all the material factors, was within the range of sentence available to the sentencing judge, given the serious offending involved. The Court held that the fact that a different Court might have imposed a slightly earlier review date did not provide a basis for intervention by the Court.
The Court held that the appeal would be dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT of the Court delivered by Mr. Justice Woulfe on the 28th day of April 2021
This is an appeal against the severity of a sentence of life imprisonment (with a review after ten years) imposed by the Central Criminal Court on the 16th December, 2020. The appellant, who is a minor, pleaded guilty to murder on the 7th September, 2020. It is accepted by the respondent that the plea was entered by the appellant at an early stage of the proceedings, without the taking of a trial date and in advance of any disclosure being sought.
The appellant appeals against the severity of the sentence imposed on the grounds that the sentencing judge gave excessive weight to the aggravating factors in the case, and either failed to have regard to certain mitigating factors which were not referred to, or gave inadequate weight to certain mitigating factors which were referred to.
It may be useful to outline a chronology of the events that led to the sentence. The incident in question occurred at a flats complex in Dublin City in April 2020, and the offence involved the killing of the appellant's friend (hereinafter “the deceased”). The appellant at the time of the murder was sixteen years of age and the deceased was twenty years of age. The two were good friends and had been taking a lot of drugs in the days leading up to the murder. The two had a falling out two days prior to the murder. The windows of the deceased's family home were smashed by third parties aggrieved by a drugs transaction which had gone sour, and the deceased believed that the appellant had “ratted” the deceased out to these persons, by identifying his home to them.
There was evidence of communications via internet messages that the appellant had been labelled “a rat” by the deceased. The appellant received a text message from his father which indicated his father's belief that he was after “ratting” on the deceased, and this message caused him significant distress. The mother of the deceased told Gardaí that, during the course of a Facebook call she received from the appellant about an hour before the incident, the appellant said about the deceased, “He's going around calling me a rat. Wait till you see what I'm going to do to him, just wait and see. I swear on my sister's life.”
On the evening of the 15th April, 2020 the appellant made his way down to the flats complex on the northside of Dublin City. He encountered the deceased as he entered the complex. There was an initial altercation, which was in a dark area not captured by CCTV, where it appears the deceased gained the upper hand in the dispute. After a brief separation of the two the fight resumed further out into the pathway of the complex, where it was then visible on CCTV footage. It was at this point that the appellant retrieved a knife from a bag which he had brought to the location, before stabbing the deceased a single time in the chest area which resulted in his death shortly afterwards.
The appellant gave a voluntary cautioned statement later that same night in Mountjoy Garda Station. He admitted his involvement in the fight and it is agreed that while he initially sought to suggest that the deceased had an implement, and then claimed that the weapon which he had brandished was a piece of glass, by the end of the interviews he had accepted his role fully, including that he had used the knife in question. The following day, the 16th April, 2020 the appellant was arrested, detained, further interviewed and subsequently charged with murder. On the 17th April, 2020 he was brought before the District Court where evidence of the arrest, charge and caution was given. He was remanded in custody and on the 3rd July, 2020 he was sent forward for trial to the Central Criminal Court. The appellant's case first appeared before the Central Criminal Court on the 27th July, 2020. Rather than fixing a trial date, the case was adjourned until later in the week and then until September 2020 for mention. On the 7th September, 2020 the appellant who was then seventeen pleaded guilty to murder. Sentencing was adjourned and the trial judge directed the preparation of a probation report. On the 5th October, 2020 the judge heard further facts and submissions, including the detailed Victim Impact Statements, along with a letter of apology from the appellant, a number of letters dealing with the difficult background of the appellant and the Probation Report prepared for the assistance of the Court. The Court adjourned sentence and directed a psychological report from the director of Oberstown Children Detention Campus.
The sentencing hearing resumed on the 16th December, 2020, and the judge gave what both parties agreed was a very detailed ruling. He began by noting that he was in receipt of a number of detailed reports, including a probation report, a clinical psychology report and a substance misuse initial assessment report. He referred also to receipt of a number of testimonials which outlined the personal circumstances of the appellant, and which indicated that there had been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Director of Public Prosecutions v Lambert
...refers to two decisions of the Court in that regard, that of ( DPP v. TD Unreported, Court of Appeal, 4th March 2021) and DPP v. BH [2021] IECA 129, in support of his view that youth and maturity should be taken into account at the headline sentence identification stage. While that point ma......