View/Open - CORA - University College Cork

the special deterrent feature of the sanction, studies from other jurisdictions suggest that
the use of the suspended sentence as a deterrent instrument may not yield the same
intended results (Easton and Piper 2005:111, Edney and Bagaric 2007:56, Weatherburn
and Bartels 2008:679, Searle et al 1998:123,Soothill 1981:22). Walker came up with a
potentially startling result when he concluded that reconviction rates for imprisonment
were lower than for suspended sentences. Arguably, he concluded, the efficacy of the
suspended sentence may have the effect of increasing and not decreasing the likelihood of
further offending(Walker 1991:44).
When writing on the suspended sentence in Ireland, Osborough (1981) questioned
whether the suspended sentence was ever meant to mean anything more than that a
custodial sentence had been passed and was then pronounced suspended. The
“expressive” nature of the sentence mayalso be its sole purpose without anyreal intention
to cause the offender to suffer any further consequences as a result of its pronouncement.
Some evidence of this approach to the use of the suspended sentence is evident from the
replies of particular respondents in the survey. The use of the sanction in this manner
may also support the argument that the suspended sentence is an instrument of a
bifurcatory approach to the disposal of criminal cases where repeat offenders are given
more severe penalties such as immediate custodywhen compared with first time and white
collar offenders who commit relatively serious offences and are given a suspended
sentence (Tait 1995:150).
A survey of the Irish case law, while not yielding a corresponding rationale with the stated
rationales from other jurisdictions, does present a series of objectives some of which are
deprecated in those jurisdictions. First, the suspended sentence is sometimes used to
avoid an immediate custodial sentence (Osborough 1982:239). Secondly, the decision of
the Court of Criminal Appeal in the case of Carl Loving(supra) is not unusual for advancing
the use of the suspended sentence as a sentence on the scale below that of a custodial
sentence. It is not uncommon for cases of dangerous driving causing serious injury or
even death to be disposed of by way of a strong denunciatory sentence of imprisonment
suspended for a number of years 88 . Usually the court opines that no purpose would be
served by sending the particular offender with an unblemished record to prison. In such
88 The sentences imposedat first instance in DPP-v-Keogh (Supra) andDPP-v-O’Reilly(Supra). As alreadynoted, these suspendedsentences were quashedandreplacedbycommunity
service orders on appeal.
239