View/Open - CORA - University College Cork

category of offence was not provided for in the relevant section. The Court of Criminal
Appeal, in deciding the case, reiterated that a Court of Quarter Session has always
possessed, as an incident of its jurisdiction, inherent power to postpone judgement of
sentence. However, the Spratling case does not appear to be direct authority for the
proposition that if the offender breaches his recognisance, the sentence comes into full
operation without the need for any further order. Otherwise, a person on a suspended
sentence, who is subsequently convicted for a further offence, would automatically have
the original sentence imposed upon him/her, without being called upon in a formal
manner to showcause whysuch original sentence should not be imposed. However, there
is an historical basis for the claim to automatic reactivation of a suspended sentence in
respect of cases of summaryjurisdiction. 133
In recognition of the due process procedures required before a suspended sentence can be
reactivated, the District Court Rules, 1997 provide the following in the form which is to
issue in the event of an activation:
That the accused has been brought before the Court and that the Court is satisfied
of the failure to carry out the terms upon which the said sentence was suspended
and now directs that the Warrant do issue (District Court Rules, 1997 Form
25.8). 134
AndOrder 25 Rule 3 provides:
“Where the Court, upon imposing a sentence of imprisonment, conditionally
suspends the execution thereof, it may, upon the application of the Prosecutor,
issue a Warrant of Committal, on being satisfied of the failure of the accused to
complywith the terms upon which the said sentence was suspended.”
While the phrase “on being satisfied of the failure of the accused” does not necessarily
implythat the accused has been given notification of the details of the alleged breach and a
133 Order 68(2) of the District Court rules, 1948 provided: “…when the imprisonment is to take place on the non-performance of a condition or where the
execution of the sentence of imprisonment has been suspended bythe Justice, the Justice shall issue the Warrant of Committal upon his being satisfied of the
non-performance of the condition or of the failure of the Defendant to carry out the terms upon which the sentence was suspended and it shall not be
necessaryin anysuch case to serve upon the Defendant anynotice of an application for the issue of the Warrant”. (District Court rules, 1948 Rule 68(2).
134 Although prior notice is not specified in the District Court Rules 1997, in light of the dicta of Geoghegan J. in Brennan – v – Windle and Murphy, the
D.P.P. andthe AttorneyGeneral, Supreme Court 31st July2003 the application of this rule without notification must be consideredquestionable.
320