View/Open - CORA - University College Cork

established, in part to ensure that an accusedperson at least served part of his/her sentence
in custody without being released by the Executive at an early stage. This practice clearly
emerged in response to the “revolving door” practice in the 1980s and early 1990s of
releasing prisoners sometimes convicted of serious offences, within very short periods of
time after committal bythe sentencingcourt.
It is noted that community service orders in the Circuit Criminal Court are sometimes
called back to court to see if the offender is properly performing the community service
(Walsh and Sexton 1999) rather than allowing such a function to be performed solely by
the probation officer who has the power to bring the case back to court in cases of non-
compliance or breach. 53
The continuous approach of the Circuit and Central Criminal Courts to resist “letting go”
of a case once sentence is pronounced was evident also in a limited studyconducted bythe
writer in respect of District Court sentencing practice (Riordan 2000). In a Focus Group
of Judges convened to examine the practices used bythe District Court in Dublin for drug
related offending one respondent expressed his reluctance to hand over the function of
sole supervision to the probation officer because:
“Nobodygets breached on a probation order in Dublin, very rarely” (Riordan 2000:40)
Another District Court Judge in the focus group explainedit in this way:
“I always prefer to have an adjourned date when he comes back into Court, it’s the immediacyof that
that is so effective…you are dependent on the efficiency of the Probation Service in identifying
whether he has broken the bond or not, and I can’t feel sufficient faith in the system to be certain that
he would be brought back into court if he is in breach of the bond”. (Riordan 2000:40).
Thus, one could interpret the approach taken bythe Irish criminal courts to exercise a level
of control over the penalties of convicted offenders as reaching far beyond the judicial
domain into the executive domain to ensure compliance either bythe prison authorities or
the Probation Service with the relevant court orders as the case may be. What is evident
from such an approach is a clear distrust on the part of Judges that the sentences, whether
53 In People (D.P.P.) –v- James O’Reilly (supra) the Court of Criminal Appeal in the final order of the court (examined by writer) specified a reviewof the order within 6 months to
ensure compliance. This procedure was adopted notwithstanding the formal powers of the Probation Service to bring breach proceedings under Sections 7 &8 Criminal Justice
(CommunityService) Act 1983 in the event of non-compliance.
183