View/Open - CORA - University College Cork

“…the reviewable sentence is another thing. The reviewable sentence is very
defendant orientated naturally and one of the drawbacks again I think is that
people do think that the sentencing process if all about the defendant and there is
almost like planning a course of education for him or something of that nature and
theydon’t think that other considerations are factoredin.” A8J1SC
The judges interviewed, especially the sentencing judges at first instance, appear to have
abandoned the practice of reviewing sentences completely. However, it is possible that
there are some prisoners in the prison system whose cases are not concluded. There
appears to be no new sentence made lately which is constructed to include a review at a
later date. Rather, the courts which formerly used the “Butler Order” are nowdeploying
the part suspended sentence in its stead.
In the case of People (D.P.P.) - v - Finn [2001] 2 I.R. 25 the Supreme Court specifically
referred to the provisions of Section 27 (3)(g) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977, as inserted
bySection 5 of the Criminal Justice Act 1999. Section 27(3)(g) allows the sentencing court
to reviewa sentence with a viewto suspending the latter part thereof, provided the court is
satisfied that the accused is or was addicted to drugs and that the addiction was a
significant factor in the commission of the specific offence under Section 15(a) of the
Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 as amended. 106
Subsequently, the Court of Criminal Appeal was to clarify an important aspect of this
statutory power to review a sentence under Section 27(3)(g). In People (D.P.P.) - v -
Dunne [2003] 4, I.R. 87., FinlayGeoghegan J. declaredthat:
"... in the absence of express legislative provision following the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the People (D.P.P.) - v - Finn [2001] 2 I.R. 25, it is impermissible
for a court to impose, as part of a sentence, a provision for review. Subsection (3)
(g) in its terms only gives the court power to do so where a minimum sentence
provided for in Subsection (3) (b) is imposed bythe court as was done in this case"
106 Subsection (3)(g) provided:- " In imposing a sentence on a person convicted of an offence under Section 15(a) of this Act, a court -(a) may enquire
whether at the time of commission of the offence the person was addictedto one or more controlled drugs, and (b) if satisfiedthat the person was so addicted
at that time andthat the addiction was a substantial factor leadingto the commission of the offence, maylist the sentence for reviewafter the expiryof not less
than one half of the period specified bythe court under Subsection 3(b) of this Section." This Section is nowreplaced bySec. 27(3) J and K Misuse of Drugs
Act 1977, as per Sec. 33 Criminal Justice Act 2007.
277