View/Open - CORA - University College Cork

“… the only matters which this Court can consider are whether it has been
established beyond reasonable doubt by the respondent that the appellant was in
breach of his recognisance, entered into before the Court on 23 rd of March, 1982,
and if so satisfied whether the breach was a serious or trivial breach. I am
satisfied that if it could have been shown that the breach was a trivial breach, the
Court would have had a discretion not to impose the balance of the sentence as
indicated, but the offences for which the appellant had been convicted in the
District Court in Limerick could not by any stretch of the imagination be termed
anything other than serious offences.” (People (D.P.P.) –v- Aylmer [1995] 2 ILRM
638).
In the survey, the responses from judges on the level of discretion exercised when
considering activation of a suspended sentence were quite interesting. As a preliminary
observation, it is worth noting that some judges continue to be sceptical about the
possibilityof ever havinga breach case brought before themwhen theyvariouslystated:
“I’d reach for my heart medicine because I would be so excited that it has
happenedafter 18 years on the bench. I’dbe close to fainting.”A4J2DC
“…I would say that in my 8 years in XYZ if I had an application by the State to
invoke a suspended sentence that I gave, I can’t remember it and I am pretty sure
that none of themcan.” A6J1DC
“Before the new Act…it was very difficult because we had no control over
activatingit. Youare waitingfor someone else to activate it.” AJ1J6DC
Some of the Judges stated they would hear the parties firstly and depending upon the
circumstances otherwise woulddeal with breaches in a forthright manner:
anytime within the five years, to serve the balance of the sentence. The accused was further convicted of two charges of breaking and entering and causing
criminal damage in Limerick District Court within the five year periodandwas breached. The sentence was imposed.
328