Report on Mandatory Sentences - Law Reform Commission

e put through the additional suffering of having to describe in detail her rape and face the ordeal
of cross-examination.” 176
1.93 In the English case R v King, 177 Lord Lane CJ indicated that the extent to which cooperation with
law enforcement authorities may mitigate the severity of a sentence will depend on a number of factors:
“The quality and quantity of the material disclosed by the informer is one of the things to be
considered, as well as the accuracy and the willingness or otherwise of the informer to give
evidence against them in due course if required by the court. Another aspect to consider is the
degree to which he has put himself and his family at risk by reason of the information he has
given; in other words the risk of reprisal. No doubt there will be other matters as well. The
reason behind this practice is expediency.” 178
1.94 The extent to which an attempt to remedy the harmful consequences of an offence may mitigate
the severity of a sentence will also depend on the circumstances of the case. 179 In The People (DPP) v
Princs, 180 a case concerning the sentence for manslaughter, it was argued in mitigation of the sentence
that the respondent had attempted to save the deceased by stemming the flow of blood with towels or
bandages. The Court of Criminal Appeal indicated that this merited limited credit as the respondent
“never called for outside medical assistance even though he told the Gardaí that the deceased was alive
after the stabbing for ten or fifteen minutes.”
1.95 In the same case, the Court of Criminal Appeal indicated that the trial judge had been right to
taken into account the fact that imprisonment would be particularly difficult for the offender, who was a
foreign national. 181 Similarly, in The People (DPP) v H, 182 a case concerning the sentence for sexual
offences which had been committed 30 years before, the Court of Criminal Appeal indicated:
“The age and health of the offender should be looked at. If the offender is so elderly, or so
unwell, then prison will be a special burden to bear, the sentence should reflect how a particular
term may punish him as much [as] a longer term for a younger offender in reasonable health.”
1.96 In The People (DPP) v GK, 183 the Court of Criminal Appeal distinguished between the effect of
“previous good character” and the effect of previous convictions:
“This court is satisfied that while previous good character is relevant to the character and
circumstances of the accused which may be mitigating factors in terms of sentence previous
convictions are relevant not in relation to mitigation of sentence but in aggravation of offence.”
1.97 In The People (DPP) v Kelly, 184 a case concerning the sentence for manslaughter, the Court of
Criminal Appeal indicated that it would have to “give considerable weight to the absence of previous
convictions.” 185 However, in The People (DPP) v Duffy, 186 the Central Criminal Court emphasised that the
weight to be attached to an absence of previous convictions, and to other potential mitigating factors,
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
The People (DPP) v Tiernan [1988] IR 250 at 255.
R v King (1986) 82 Cr App R 120. See: O’Malley Sentencing Law and Practice (Thomson Round Hall, 2 nd ed,
2006) at 129.
R v King (1986) 82 Cr App R 120 at 122.
See: O’Malley Sentencing Law and Practice (Thomson Round Hall, 2 nd ed, 2006) at paragraph 6-33.
The People (DPP) v Princs [2007] IECCA 142.
Ibid. See: O’Malley Sentencing Law and Practice (Thomson Round Hall, 2 nd ed, 2006) at 129-131.
The People (DPP) v H [2007] IEHC 335.
The People (DPP) v GK [2008] IECCA 110.
The People (DPP) v Kelly [2005] 1 ILRM 19.
The People (DPP) v Kelly [2005] 1 ILRM 19 at 33.
The People (DPP) v Duffy [2009] 3 IR 613.
31