AN APPEAL by the Director of Public Prosecutions against an "unduly lenient" court decision to suspend sentences on two men was upheld yesterday.
Mr Justice Murphy said a revolutionary change introduced by Section Two of the Criminal Justice Act of 1993 may put an end to pre-trial discussions between a judge and counsel for the DPP and an accused, or it may mean they take a different form.
Counsel must in future recognise that any sentence imposed by a trial judge - or any sentence which it is anticipated may be imposed - would be subject to review by the Court of Criminal Appeal so that any course of action taken by an accused must have regard to that legal reality. The three-judge Court of Criminal Appeal ordered yesterday that jail sentences imposed on two Dublin men, which had been suspended, will now have to be served. The decision of the Circuit Criminal Court to suspend the sentences of six years and four years had been appealed by the DPP. It was submitted that suspending the sentences was unduly lenient.
Kieran Cox (49), Cherry Orchard Avenue, Ballyfermot, had been given a six-year suspended sentence and Anthony Keeler (35), of Rossmore Drive, Ballyfermot, had been given a four-year suspended sentence. When the case was before the Circuit Criminal Court in November 1997, the sentences were suspended on the two men entering bonds to be of good behaviour.
The men had been charged on a number of counts of handling stolen property valued in excess of £100,000 following a Garda raid on a warehouse or shed at Bay Lane, Mulhuddart in August 1993.
A Garda superintendent gave evidence in the Circuit Criminal Court that items discovered included a tractor unit, a substantial goods container, which did contain or had contained the household goods and personal effects stolen from Ambassador Mr Brendan Scannell, as well as motor vehicles and other property.
Giving the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal yesterday, Mr Justice Murphy said the two men were tried in due course. They pleaded not guilty and were convicted. They appealed their sentences to the Court of Criminal Appeal and were allowed bail. Their conviction was quashed. On the retrial, they pleaded guilty and were convicted.
The Court of Criminal Appeal proposed to impose the sentences but to direct that the matter be reentered before the Circuit Court judge after the men had served a year of their term. That procedure would enable the judge to consider whether there were facts at that stage, or on any subsequent review, which would justify the optimism and humanity which he had expressed - prematurely in the view of the Court of Criminal Appeal - in imposing the two suspended sentences.