View/Open - CORA - University College Cork

validity of the procedure as a sentencing measure has been confirmed in a series of cases.
In McIllhaga (1971supra) , O’Dalaigh C.J. approved its traditional use as an Irish sentencing
practice. More recently in O’Brien –v - Governor of Limerick Prison [1997] 2 ILRM 349
the Supreme Court per O’FlahertyJ. stated:
“… the development of the suspended sentence was an invention of the Irish
judiciary … The use of a straight-forward suspended sentence is so well established
in our legal system as not to require any elaboration here except to note that it is
obviouslya verybeneficial jurisdiction for judges to possess”. (Michael O’Brien –
v – Governor of Limerick Prison [1997] 2 ILRM, O’FlahertyJ. p.353)
In 1985 the Whitaker Committee expressed concerns about the status of the sanction. In
particular theynoted that the sanction lacked the legislative claritywhich the 1967 Criminal
Justice Bill would have conferred upon it. This legislative clarity was to finally emerge
with the passing of the Criminal Justice Act 2006. Notwithstanding such lack of legislative
clarity to underpin the status of the suspended sentence, the sanction has become one of
the most commonlyused 69 sentences byjudges in Irelandduringthe past century.
Recent data published in the Annual Reports of the Courts Service disclose that in the
Circuit Criminal Court in Dublin in 2005, 29% of all offenders had their cases disposed of
bywayof a whollysuspended sentence while in the rest of the State 32.5% of all offenders
had their cases disposed of by way of a wholly suspended sentence in the same year
(Courts Service Annual Report 2005 extrapolated). Meanwhile, in the District Court for
the year 2006, 21,018 received custodial sentences of which 6,443 were fully suspended. 70
This represents a ratio of 3:1, in other words 30.65% of all custodial sentences were
suspendedin the District Court for that year. 71
69 The Needham (1983) study of GalwayDistrict Court discloses that in the period 1978-1983 13.3% of all indictable offences dealt with summarily in that court were disposed of by
wayof suspendedsentence.
70 Suspendedsentences in the District Court are masked under the headingof custodial sentences. In other words the Courts Service annual reports do not separatelyreport asuspended
sentence. These are countedas custodial sentences. It was therefore necessaryfor the writer to examine the original source material in the Courts Service to ascertain the number of
suspendedsentences grantedin the District Court for the years 2005 and2006.
71 The actual number of custodial sentences was 14,575. When the total number of summary cases (329,775) is added to the total number of indictable cases (48,272) for 2006, the
percentage of custodial sentences imposed in the District Court for all cases prosecuted is 3.85%. The percentage of fully suspended sentences for all cases prosecuted or
commenced is 1.7%. Comparable figures for 2005 showexactly the same pattern. Suspended sentences in 2005 in the District Court represented a ratio of 3:1 or 31.22%. For
everycustodial sentence imposed, one in three was suspended. Custodial sentences were imposed in 3.7% of all cases commenced while fullysuspended sentences were imposed in
1.7% of all cases prosecuted (Courts Service – Rawdatasets October 07 examinedbywriter andextrapolated).
224