Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
IECA 364 ECLI:IE:CA:2015:364 Generato dall'IA

Court of Appeal reduces seven-year sentence to six years due to excessive severity and lack of victim impact report.

Numero d'incarto IECA 364
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Irlanda (IE)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Parzialmente accolto (Partially Allowed)
Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against the severity of a seven-year sentence, reducing it to six years. The appellant argued the term was excessive given his limited prior record and the absence of a victim impact report, while noting the co-accused received a similar term for greater involvement. The court agreed that the combination of these factors justified a reduction, substituting the original term with six years effective from the Circuit Court's date.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Sentencing Act; Criminal Procedure Act: Where a sentence is found excessive due to lack of victim impact reports and disparity with co-accused terms, the court may reduce the sentence to ensure proportionality.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
sentence severity appeal victim impact report absence co-accused disparity comparison bail credit deprivation proportionality sentencing principle

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

THE COURT OF APPEAL

The President

Birmingham J.

Edwards J.

107/13

The People at the Suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

V

Alan Wilson

Appellant

Judgment of the Court (ex tempore) delivered on the 9th day of November 2015 by

Mr. Justice Birmingham

1. This is an appeal against severity of sentence at this stage. Last week the court delivered a judgment which rejected the appeal

against conviction and in that judgment the facts that are relating to this incident are set out and will not be repeated at this stage.

2. So far as the sentence appeal is concerned, there are really two aspects to it. There is first of all a contention that the sentence

of seven years was excessive. It said that it was excessive in a situation where this applicant had only one District Court conviction

and it said that the court did not have the benefit the sentencing court would normally have of a victim impact report.

3. In the written submissions the point is made as well that the eight years which the co-accused received in respect of the burglary

and firearms does not sufficiently distinguish from the seven years given to this accused in a situation where it said that the co-

accused’s involvement was somewhat greater and where the co-accused prior record was a worse one.

4. The second point that arises is that it is the situation that the appellant was admitted to bail in respect of this offence. However,

he was charged with another offence, a serious offence and went into custody on that matter. However, his bail on this matter

technically remained in existence notwithstanding the fact that he was actually in custody. He was then subsequently acquitted on

the other matter and the point is made that he was effectively deprived of his liberty for twelve months and that he should have

credit for that.

5. Without making any general statements in principle, the court is of the view that in all the circumstances, if regard is had to the

combination of the factors that have been identified that it is appropriate to reduce the sentence that was imposed in the Circuit

Court by one year and the court will do that.

6. In coming to that conclusion the court has had regard to the report from the Governor that indicates that some progress has been

made. For the sentence of seven years there will now be substituted a sentence of six years to date from the day that the Circuit

Court had identified.