View/Open - CORA - University College Cork

at each jurisdictional level. The District Court has jurisdiction to deal with a wide range of
indictable offences in anycase where both the accused and the D.P.P. have consented. In
these cases the District Court can impose a maximum sentence of twelve months on a
single count, or twenty-four months where sentence is imposed on separate counts to run
consecutively. The sentencing maxima of the Circuit and Central Criminal Courts are far
in excess of twelve months. Depending on the specific offence, the Circuit Criminal
Court has the power to sentence many offenders convicted of offences tried before it to
terms of imprisonment for life.
The writer is aware of one case in Cork where the Circuit Court Judge was minded to
impose a community service order of seven hundred and fifty hours in lieu of three years
imprisonment in respect of one offence, until it was pointed out that the statutory
maximum was two hundred and forty hours no matter what alternative term of
imprisonment might be in contemplation. While a convincing argument can be made for
scaling the hours in a community service order relative to the length of the substitute term
of imprisonment the scale of equivalence breaks down in respect of sentences for the
Circuit Criminal Court unless the Court deals with the offender as if it were sentencing at
District Court jurisdictional level only. The empirical studies conducted by Walsh and
Sexton (1999) shows the national average of community service is twenty-seven hours for
everyperiod of one month imprisonment.
The issue of equivalence was specifically raised by one of the judges in the survey who
deals solelywith indictable crime when he said:
“you see the thing is the Act doesn’t make a difference for a crime that is purely summary or
communityservice and serious indictable crimes. … for serious indictable crimes the period worked
couldbe longer … double it … at least maybe 500 hours.” A7J3CC
If such was providedfor in the Act it wouldbe used more extensivelyhe opined.
The empirical study conducted by Walsh and Sexton (1999) discloses that community
service, when implemented, was used by courts in a manner which was much in keeping
with the anticipated categories of offenders and offences enunciated by the
parliamentarians. They also found that community service was applied quite unevenly
across the country, showing differences between rural and urban sentencing Courts. The
168