British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Irish Court of Criminal Appeal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Irish Court of Criminal Appeal >> D.P.P.-v- Derek Tighe [2004] IECCA 4 (19 February 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECCA/2004/4.html
Cite as: [2004] IECCA 4
[New search] [Help]
|
Judgment Title: D.P.P.-v- Derek Tighe Composition of Court: Keane C.J., O'Neill J., deValera J. Judgment by: Keane C.J. Status of Judgment: Approved |
Judgments by | Result | Concurring | Dissenting | |
Keane C.J. | Refuse leave to appeal | |||
Outcome: Refuse leave to appeal
4
THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Keane C.J.
O’Neill J.
de Valera J.
142/03
BETWEEN
DEREK TIGHE
APPLICANT
AND
THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT of the Court delivered the 19th day of February, 2004 by Keane C.J.
This is an appeal from the refusal of the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court (His Honour Judge Michael White) to grant leave to appeal against a sentence of three years’ imprisonment imposed on the applicant in respect of an offence of robbery at the Dundrum Shopping Centre branch of the Ulster Bank on the 19th June, 2002, to which the applicant had pleaded guilty. The court has already given judgment today on an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions pursuant to s. 2(1) of the Criminal Justice Act, 1993 in respect of another person concerned in this robbery, Mark Doyle.
The evidence in that case and in the present case indicated that, while the actual robbery was carried out by Mark Doyle, the applicant was a front seat passenger in the car in which the former travelled to the scene of the crime. As Gardaí approached the car, the applicant jumped out of it and tried to escape. He was arrested by Gardaí after a struggle on the forecourt of a nearby garage. The Gardaí having arrested him and placed him in the back of their patrol car, he was observed reaching his right hand into his jacket pocket and taking out some notes of money crumpled in his hand which he allowed to be dropped on the seat between him and the other person who was a prisoner in the back of the car. He gave no assistance to the Gardaí during the course of their further investigations.
At the trial, evidence was given that the applicant is now thirty four years old and has two children aged twelve and four. He had twenty four previous convictions, some for burglary and larceny offences, some for drug related offences and some for road traffic offences.
The evidence of the investigating Garda was that the driver of the car on the occasion in question was a well-known armed robber whom the Gardaí regarded as being in charge of the operation. The investigating Garda also said that, although the applicant remained outside the bank while the robbery was being committed, he appeared to have a twofold role, i.e. as a lookout for the Gardaí and to ensure that Mark Doyle did not make off with the proceeds of the crime himself.
The trial judge was informed of the sentences imposed by His Honour Judge Hogan on Mark Doyle which were the subject of the application by the Director of Public Prosecutions in respect of which judgment has been given today. He was also informed that the driver of the motor car on the occasion in question, was also sentenced by His Honour Judge Hogan and received a sentence of two years imprisonment, in respect of which the final eighteen months were suspended. Counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions asked the trial judge to defer sentencing in the present case until he had obtained instructions in respect of the other two accused. On the resumed hearing, he informed the trial judge that the Director of Public Prosecutions was applying in both those cases to this court for review on the ground that the sentences imposed were unduly lenient. Counsel on behalf of the applicant submitted that the view of the Director as to whether the sentences were unduly lenient was not relevant. She had at an earlier stage urged that the court should take into account the sentences imposed on the other two persons concerned.
While the transcript of the remarks of the trial judge in giving sentence is very difficult to follow, it seems obvious that he was aware, not simply of the sentences imposed on the other persons concerned, but also that they were the subject of an application for a review by this court on the ground of undue leniency. In those circumstances, this court is satisfied that the trial judge adopted the correct course in imposing sentence on the applicant without regard to the sentences imposed on the other persons concerned. Had he taken them into account, then, depending on the outcome of the Director’s application to this court, an unjustifiable discrepancy might have resulted between the sentence imposed on the applicant and those other persons.
Having regard to the serious nature of the offence, the relevantly significant role played by the applicant and his previous record, this court cannot detect any error in principle in the manner in which he was dealt with by the trial judge. It will, accordingly, refuse the application for leave to appeal.