Unduly lenient sentences in the District Court should be subject to appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions, according to the Law Reform Commission.
The recommendation comes in a consultation paper from the commission, to be launched by the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Keane, later today. This will then be circulated for further discussion, submissions will be invited, and a final report will be published probably early next year.
It is not possible currently to appeal a sentence from the District Court which is thought to be unduly lenient. The commission recommends introducing such a change in the law because it is in the public interest that offenders should be sentenced appropriately, and that there be a procedure in place for correcting an unduly lenient sentence.
It also states that it is important that any real or perceived inconsistency, amounting to a failure to apply sentencing principles, can be corrected. The commission distinguishes between inconsistency and disparity in sentences. The latter can be justified on the basis of sentencing principles by variations in the circumstances of the crime and of the defendant.
According to the paper, the consent of the DPP should be necessary for such an appeal. Such consent would be sought by the prosecutor in the case.
It recommends that the appeal should be from the District to the Circuit Court. The basis on which such an appeal would be allowed would be that there had been a substantial departure from the appropriate sentence, amounting to an error of principle.
This would make it unlikely that a Circuit Court would increase an existing sentence by a matter of a few months. However, if the District Court had given the defendant the benefit of the Probation Act, meaning no sanction was applied, and the Circuit Court felt nine months imprisonment would have been appropriate, that would be likely to be imposed.
The commission has not made any new proposals on appeals against acquittals. Already it is possible for the DPP to appeal on a point of law to the High Court. But this does not overturn the acquittal, it clarifies the law.
The commission also considered other proposals to deal with the perception of inconsistency in sentencing in the District Court. It rejected the introduction of sentencing guidelines, on the basis that they would conflict with the discretionary nature of Irish sentencing policy.
However, it supports the view, outlined in the judiciary's own report on Judicial Conduct and Ethics, that sentencing bench books might be prepared by the proposed Judicial Studies Committee. This forms part of a proposed Judicial Council, also recommended in the report.
These proposals form part of the judiciary's proposals for the introduction of a system for dealing with judicial conduct and ethics, which were never acted on by the Government.