View/Open - CORA - University College Cork

view, this argument is not sustainable. A person may not be of good behaviour
even though he has not committed a crime, and certainly even though he has not
been convicted of a crime. It is not difficult to think of examples such as
consistently committing a nuisance to his neighbours, and it is equally easy to think
of examples of criminal offences which would not necessarilymean that the person
who committed the offence was not of good behaviour as, for example, a parking
offence. At the end of the day, it must be a matter for the sentencing Judge in each
individual case to decide whether specific behaviour can be said to be a breach of
an undertaking to be of good behaviour” (McCracken J. Michael RooneyDignam –
v- Judge Groarke & Others IEHC 150 2000).
On the final issue, on the manner in which the first named respondent dealt with the
application to re-activate the suspended sentence, the court noted with approval the
judgement of Barron J. in the State (Murphy) –v- Kielt [1984] I.R. 458 and of the Supreme
Court in the appeal which followed. In the latter case the convicted person had been
given temporary release from St. Patrick’s Institution on a number of conditions, one of
which required him to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. During the period of
temporary release, he was arrested and charged with attempted murder which he denied
and was remanded in custody again to St. Patrick’s Institution on that charge. While on
remand, the Governor of St. Patrick’s Institution, purported to terminate the temporary
release solely on the grounds of the new and serious charge preferred against the prisoner
without further enquiry. Barron J. in the High Court set out the essential requirements
before a decision to re-activate the temporaryrelease couldbe made as follows:
“In myview, the essentials of a validhearingin the present case require at least:-
1. Evidence from which it would have been fair to hold in favour of the
allegation.
2. Notification to the prosecutor (prisoner) of the nature of such evidence
sufficient to enable him to prepare a defence.
3. Time for the prosecutor (prisoner) to prepare a defence and for an
Andhe went on:
opportunityto make that defence”.
323