View/Open - CORA - University College Cork

cases but it retains, it is argued, all the critical elements of the suspended sentence relating
to time and conditionality. 116
In the surveyof judges, the District Court judges reflected upon the practice of suspending
a sentence on condition that the offender does not re-offend within a certain period of
time. A District Court judge in one of the focus groups spoke about the new form of
suspended sentence under Section 99 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 and the previous
common law procedure as if they were a seamless whole and not mutually exclusive
procedures. In particular she stated:
“…In relation to a suspended sentence, particularly now that the new Act has
come into force, I regard it as one of the greatest forms of sentencing…because
you are putting it up to them if you are suspending them from the warrant issuing
for 12 months provided they do not commit or are convicted of a further
offence.”A1J1DC
A judge of the Circuit Criminal Court while recognising the requirement to make use of a
recognizance under the newsuspended sentence stated:
“…Again yesterday I had one and I felt he wasn’t going to re-offend again. I just
suspended it simpliciter. More often than not they enter into a bond. I would
certainlysaythat over 80% are bonds…”A3J1CC
Although Osborough (1981) points to the requirement that a sentence of imprisonment
was only suspended when the offender entered into a bond, this was not necessarily the
practice, especially in the District Court where the procedure of staying the issuance of a
warrant was the predominant practice. Similarly in the Circuit Criminal Court the use of
the bondwas not universal.
The views expressed by the two judges above may indicate that some judges do not feel
necessarily obliged to follow in every detail the newformat for suspending a sentence but
116 When revocation is considered, this type of sentence utilises a higher standard of proof of a further conviction rather than a breach of the peace which
maynot necessarilyamount to a criminal offence (Dignam–v- Groarke andthe D.P.P. 17th November, 2000 IEHC 150 Bailii).
285