View/Open - CORA - University College Cork

Court pronounced on the operation of the suspended sentence. However, other than
covering the disposition with the mantle of authority which the Supreme Court
undoubtedly possesses, the court did not elaborate on the rationale behind the sanction.
In the case of People (DPP) –v- Alexiou [2003] 3IR 513 we find a more recent judicial
pronouncement on the suspended sentence. 76 The facts of the case disclosed that the
accused Alexiou had been found in possession of illegal drugs with an estimated street
value of €77,000 which could have attracted, on conviction, a presumptive penalty of ten
years imprisonment as a minimum sentence in the absence of special and exceptional
circumstances. 77
Even though a central feature of the Alexiou case turned on the liability of the prisoner to
be sentenced for a minimum of 10 years imprisonment as provided for under Section 15(a)
where he was in possession of €77,000 worth of drugs, the case was ultimately decided
according to the appropriateness of conditions attached to the suspended sentence which
were essentiallycrime-preventative in nature.
The Court of Criminal Appeal per Murray J. approved the suspended sentence imposed
upon the accused with the proviso that the imposition of the condition that the offender
leave the jurisdiction immediately should not be in perpetuity but should be for a
designated period of time and in the case of EU nationals generally, the condition might
not be appropriate.
The Irish Superior Courts have steadfastlyrefused to issue guidelines to the lower courts in
respect of sentencing matters (People (D.P.P.) – v – Tiernan [1988] I.R. 250). 78
Accordingly it is to be expected that the same courts have shown a reluctance to deal with
sentencing issues in general but approach each matter on a case by case basis. Such an
approach inhibits the emergence of a clearly enunciated rationale for the suspended
76 The court specificallyreferredto the individualisedapproach to sentencingwhich was pronouncedearlier in People (D.P.P.) – v– McCormack[2000] 4I.R. 356 andwhich approach in
the instant case the court approved. The Court of Criminal Appeal as per MurrayJ. addressed the specific issue of conditions attached to the suspended sentence, which required the
convicted offender to leave the jurisdiction immediatelyas a condition attached to his suspended sentence of 4 years imprisonment. In this prosecution appeal against leniency, the
D.P.P. alleged the Central Criminal Court was unduly lenient in imposing a suspended sentence on a South African national convicted under Section 15(a) and Section 27 of the
Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 as amended.
77 In respect of possession of drugs for the purpose of sale andsupplywith astreet value in excess of €13,000 (Euro Changeover (Amounts) Act, 2001), Section 15(a) provides that upon
conviction aminimumsentence of ten years imprisonment shouldbe imposedunless the trial judge is satisfiedthat there are special andexceptional circumstances.
78 The Supreme Court declared that it would not issue guideline judgements on sentencing in general due to the lack of statistical data on sentencing and having regard to the
requirement for the sentencing court to consider each sentence appropriate to the particular circumstances of each specific case. In the instant case notwithstanding, the Supreme
Court diddeclare that in rape cases such offences shouldalways, except in the most exceptional circumstances, attract an immediate andsubstantial custodial sentence.
231