Report on Mandatory Sentences - Law Reform Commission

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Pg N o . R v Bieber [2009] 1 WLR 223 UK 52 R v Candless [2004] NI 269 NI 56 R v Dalton [1995] 2 Cr App R 340 UK 48 R v Dobson and Norris Central Criminal Court 4 January 2012 UK 110 R v Ellis [2003] EWCA Crim 3556 UK 44 R v F Howe & Sons [1999] 2 All ER 249 Eng 27 (Engineers) Ltd R v Howell [2010] NICC 48 NI 108 R v Howells [1999] 1 WLR 307 UK 19 R v Jones and Others [2006] 2 Cr App R (S) 19 UK 53 R v Kelly [2011] 4 All ER 687 UK 109 R v King (1986) 82 Cr App R 120 Eng 31 R v Latimer [2001] 1 SCR 3 Can 12 R v M(CA) [1996] 1 SCR 500 Can 12 R v Oliver (2003) 1 Cr App R 28 Eng 28 R v Secretary of State for the [1993] EWHC QB 2 UK 44 Home Department ex parte Bentley R v Stewart [2011] NICC 10 NI 108 R v Veregrin [1933] 2 DLR 362 Can 103 R v Walsh [2004] NI 269 NI 108 Re Royal Prerogative of Mercy [1933] SCR 269 Can 103 upon Deportation Proceedings Stafford v United Kingdom (2002) 35 EHRR 32 ECHR 50 State (C) v Frawley [1976] IR 365 Irl 7 State (Healy) v Donoghue [1976] IR 325 Irl 61 State (P Woods) v Attorney [1969] IR 385 Irl 178 General The People (AG) v [1966] IR 501 Irl 13 O'Callaghan The People (Attorney General) (1972) 1 Frewen 351 Irl 17 v O’Driscoll The People (Attorney General) [1972] IR 402 Irl 7 v Poyning The People (DPP) v Alexiou [2003] 3 IR 513 Irl 133 The People (DPP) v Anderson [2010] IECCA 46 Irl 133 xx
Pg N o . The People (DPP) v Barry The People (DPP) v Benjamin Court of Criminal Appeal 23 June 2008 Court of Criminal Appeal 14 January 2002 Irl 142 Irl 133 The People (DPP) v Black [2010] IECCA 91 Irl 25 The People (DPP) v Botha [2004] 2 IR 375 Irl 131 The People (DPP) v Brodigan Court of Criminal Appeal 13 October 2008 Irl 133 The People (DPP) v Byrne [2012] IECCA 72 Irl 133 The People (DPP) v Carmody [1988] ILRM 370 Irl 13 The People (DPP) v Charles Portlaoise Circuit Court 13 July 2004 Irl 79 The People (DPP) v Clail [2009] IECCA 13 Irl 141 The People (DPP) v Cleary [2012] IECCA 32 Irl 134 and Brown The People (DPP) v Colclough [2010] IECCA 15 Irl 20 The People (DPP) v Coles [2009] IECCA 144 Irl 133 The People (DPP) v Connolly [2011] IESC 6 Irl 128 The People (DPP) v Costelloe Court of Criminal Appeal 2 April 2009 Irl 132 The People (DPP) v Crowe [2010] 1 IR 129 Irl 19 The People (DPP) v Curtin [2010] IECCA 54 Irl 141 The People (DPP) v Davis [2008] IECCA 58 Irl 134 The People (DPP) v Deans [2012] IECCA 11 Irl 136 The People (DPP) v Delaney [2010] IECCA 57 Irl 133 The People (DPP) v Delaney Court of Criminal Appeal 28 February 2000 Irl 137 The People (DPP) v Dermody [2007] 2 IR 622 Irl 133 The People (DPP) v Dillon Court of Criminal Appeal 17 Irl 21 December 2008 The People (DPP) v Ducque [2005] IECCA 92 Irl 131 The People (DPP) v Duffy [2009] 3 IR 613 Irl 8 The People (DPP) v Duffy Court of Criminal Appeal 21 Irl 131 December 2001 The People (DPP) v Dunne [2003] 4 IR 87 Irl 138 The People (DPP) v Dwyer Court of Criminal Appeal 9 February 2009 Irl 142 The People (DPP) v Farrell [2010] IECCA 116 Irl 132 xxi
Page 1 and 2: REPORT MANDATORY SENTENCES (LRC 108
Page 3 and 4: MEMBERSHIP The Law Reform Commissio
Page 5 and 6: ADMINISTRATION STAFF Head of Admini
Page 7 and 8: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Commission wou
Page 9 and 10: TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF LEGISLAT
Page 11: CHAPTER 5 (1) Presumptive Minimum S
Page 14 and 15: Pg N o . Criminal Code Act 1899 (Ql
Page 16 and 17: Pg N o . Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 c
Page 19: TABLE OF CASES Pg N o . Attorney Ge
Page 23 and 24: Pg N o . The People (DPP) v Kelly C
Page 25 and 26: INTRODUCTION A Background: Request
Page 27 and 28: sentences for offences committed wh
Page 29 and 30: 1 CHAPTER 1 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FO
Page 31 and 32: from loss of liberty is clearly evi
Page 33 and 34: 3. Criminal conduct will, in genera
Page 35 and 36: 1.19 In the context of preventing f
Page 37 and 38: and vocational programmes. 39 Suppo
Page 39 and 40: standards, recognising that these m
Page 41 and 42: he lost his post, pension and pay-r
Page 43 and 44: (i) Identifying the range of applic
Page 45 and 46: 1.58 In general, however, the court
Page 47 and 48: Thus, depending on the presence of
Page 49 and 50: matters. She lost interest in study
Page 51 and 52: of the person who must pay it. In t
Page 53 and 54: (9) Whether the offence was committ
Page 55 and 56: e put through the additional suffer
Page 57 and 58: (1) The Problem of a Lack of Struct
Page 59 and 60: conviction that restricted employme
Page 61 and 62: and to hold public seminars on matt
Page 63 and 64: A mechanism based on measures being
Page 65: since 1996; and (iii) information i
Page 68 and 69: which captured adverse public atten
Page 70 and 71:
compromise which failed to achieve
Page 72 and 73:
2.16 It may be recalled that the ma
Page 74 and 75:
y law and applicable in all cases w
Page 76 and 77:
ody under Article 5(4). As the Secr
Page 78 and 79:
irrespective of whether the sentenc
Page 80 and 81:
2.45 In Attorney General for Northe
Page 82 and 83:
five years. This was made permanent
Page 84 and 85:
penalty or suspending it for an exp
Page 86 and 87:
protection from those with murderou
Page 88 and 89:
an application for release under Ar
Page 90 and 91:
2.87 The Supreme Court upheld the d
Page 92 and 93:
independent judicial body which wou
Page 94 and 95:
whether the life prisoner poses a c
Page 96 and 97:
offences became extremely unpopular
Page 98 and 99:
who rarely had large quantities of
Page 100 and 101:
2.124 The Crime (Sentences) Act 199
Page 102 and 103:
and suppliers. 300 It was proposed
Page 104 and 105:
Bill which would, among other matte
Page 106 and 107:
(2) Mandatory Sentences for Firearm
Page 108 and 109:
(b) England and Wales 2.154 In 2002
Page 110 and 111:
filtered into the public domain. Th
Page 112 and 113:
now applied to a range of drug and
Page 114 and 115:
D Historical Evolution of Mandatory
Page 116 and 117:
supervision should be liable to one
Page 118 and 119:
“These are unduly weak provisions
Page 120 and 121:
offender is being sentenced for any
Page 122 and 123:
2.208 Section 24 of the 2007 Bill p
Page 124 and 125:
proportionality and judicial discre
Page 126 and 127:
2.220 The Commission notes that an
Page 128 and 129:
the Prison Rules 2007. 5 This mecha
Page 130 and 131:
the case of a prisoner serving a ma
Page 132 and 133:
e released. These recommendations w
Page 134 and 135:
considers that the seriousness of t
Page 136 and 137:
then adjusted to reflect the aggrav
Page 138 and 139:
3.37 In three jurisdictions (the No
Page 140 and 141:
(8) Summary 3.43 From this survey,
Page 142 and 143:
(b) The Principle of Proportionalit
Page 144 and 145:
equirements of Article 5(1) were sa
Page 146 and 147:
cannot reflect these variations in
Page 148 and 149:
process. In particular, considerati
Page 151 and 152:
4 CHAPTER 4 PRESUMPTIVE MINIMUM SEN
Page 153 and 154:
(b) Importation 4.08 The first elem
Page 155 and 156:
creates a risk of arbitrary and unj
Page 157 and 158:
This permits the court to presume,
Page 159 and 160:
should apply. Thus, it has been not
Page 161 and 162:
injury. 66 An admission voluntarily
Page 163 and 164:
4.44 Section 27(3D)(c)(i) provides
Page 165 and 166:
(4) Drug Mules 4.52 The Commission
Page 167 and 168:
used, and (b) a vehicle the means o
Page 169 and 170:
(i) Have 4.74 The meaning of the te
Page 171 and 172:
Misuse of Drugs Act 1977, material
Page 173 and 174:
endanger life or cause serious dama
Page 175 and 176:
“appropriate custodial term”, w
Page 177 and 178:
offensive weapon or an article with
Page 179 and 180:
4.117 Minimum sentences are also pr
Page 181 and 182:
identity theft; 257 (v) certain gan
Page 183 and 184:
examinations; 282 (xv) stalking in
Page 185 and 186:
in Schedule I or Schedule II to the
Page 187 and 188:
possession of a weapon obtained by
Page 189 and 190:
of age. 355 Second, the following o
Page 191 and 192:
ecent years, it would appear that t
Page 193 and 194:
custodial sentence in circumstances
Page 195 and 196:
to commit an indictable offence. 41
Page 197 and 198:
4.183 Section 297 of the Criminal C
Page 199 and 200:
offences. aims. It is arguable, how
Page 201 and 202:
analysis suggested, among other thi
Page 203 and 204:
4.210 Third, the Commission observe
Page 205 and 206:
4.224 In Chapter 1, the Commission
Page 207:
eneficial” response to other form
Page 210 and 211:
while under the age of 18 years, bu
Page 212 and 213:
C Mandatory Sentence for a Second o
Page 214 and 215:
institution. For the purposes of th
Page 216 and 217:
5.37 Subject to certain conditions,
Page 218 and 219:
operates retrospectively in so far
Page 220 and 221:
the perpetrator has a previous conv
Page 222 and 223:
(iv) Federal Government 5.58 At fed
Page 224 and 225:
(f) Australia 5.65 Certain Australi
Page 226 and 227:
coerced the offender to commit the
Page 228 and 229:
5.79 Division 2A of the Criminal La
Page 230 and 231:
would be manifestly unjust. If the
Page 232 and 233:
deterrent effect of mandatory sente
Page 234 and 235:
treat dissimilar cases differently.
Page 236 and 237:
and have therefore been discussed,
Page 239 and 240:
6 CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATI
show all

Report on Mandatory Sentences - Law Reform Commission

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?