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. (People) v. F. (D.) [2008] IECCA 81 (30 May 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECCA/2008/2008_IECCA_81.html
Cite as: [2008] IECCA 81
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
Neutral Citation: [2008] IECCA 81
Kearns J.
Herbert J.
de Valera J.
[Record No 37 CJA/2008]
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 2 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1993
BETWEEN
THE PEOPLE AT THE SUIT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
APPLICANT
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT of the Court (ex tempore) delivered the 30th day of May, 2008 by Kearns J.
In this case the learned trial judge, at the end of a hotly contested trial in the Central Criminal Court, imposed an eighteen month sentence on the respondent in respect of a number of indecent assaults which took
-2-
place over a period of years and which undoubtedly were extremely traumatic for the victim who was a young girl who must have been very frightened and horrified at the nature of these assaults, which went on between 1990 and 1998.
The jury acquitted the respondent of all the most serious charges but did convict on a range of sexual or indecent assault incidents which counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions told the court could be regarded as falling within the lower grade in terms of gravity, apart from one episode when apparently the respondent lay on top of the victim. She was fully clothed but he simulated a sexual act and the Director contended that this was a more serious offence than the other actual touchings of the victim in an indecent way.
Whether that is correct or not, the point is that the sentencing judge took this very much on board and did impose a different sentence for this particular assault, the one which was the subject matter of Count 4, and imposed a thirty month sentence of imprisonment for that offence, whereas on all the indecent assault counts, namely Counts 1 and 2, and the sexual assault counts, namely Counts.3, 6, 50, 36, 37 and 38, he imposed concurrent sentences of eighteen months.
Mr. Grehan, senior counsel for the applicant, very fairly accepts that the onus is on the Director to show that there has been a significant departure from what may be seen as the appropriate sentence or an error
-3-
of principle before the Court can intervene to vary a sentence under Section 2 and the Court takes the view that Mr. Gageby has accurately characterised the sentence in this case as a lenient one but not lenient to the degree that the Court can be satisfied that it represents an error of principle or that the sentence which was imposed was one that was not open to the sentencing judge.
Taking everything into account and the contents of the written submissions on both sides, the Court is of the view that the application for a review should be dismissed.