The DPP has a high threshold to cross in proving that Wayne O'Donoghue's four-year sentence was unduly lenient, writes Carol Coulter, Legal Affairs Correspondent
It is now not unusual for the Director of Public Prosecutions to appeal against the leniency of a sentence imposed following a person's conviction for a serious crime.
Such appeals have been allowed since 1993, but only took off in 1999, when 34 such appeals were taken. Of these 17 were successful, 16 failed and one was struck out. Roughly the same number was taken the following year, again with about half being successful.
From 2001 onwards fewer were taken, but a higher proportion was successful, with 17 out of 23 succeeding in 2001 and 14 out of 23 succeeding the following year, a pattern followed in subsequent years.
This is likely to reflect the fact that, with the courts giving more judgments, it was clearer to the DPP's office what the criteria would be for a successful appeal.
These have been laid down in a number of judgments, both against severity and leniency of sentence. First, it has been found that the sentence will only be varied if there is a substantial departure from what could be regarded as an appropriate sentence. A slight departure from the norm in such cases would not be enough to justify a variation.
According to the latest figures from the Central Criminal Court, sentences for those who pleaded guilty to manslaughter in 2005 tended to be more than four years. Of the six people sentenced following a guilty plea, one got between five and seven years, and five got between seven and 10. However, these figures do not reveal whether they had previous convictions or whether there were other factors that had to be taken into account.
The judge must take into account any mitigating factors when imposing sentence. In a 2003 appeal involving a soldier convicted of an assault who received six months, the sentence was reduced to a suspended one on the basis that the trial judge had not taken into account the person's previous good character and the fact that the custodial sentence would end his Army career.
The Court of Criminal Appeal has also held that while the sentencing judge is not obliged to give reasons when imposing sentence, it is a desirable practice to do so in order to enhance public confidence in the criminal justice system, and because it facilitates review of the sentence by the appelate court.
Mr Justice Paul Carney outlined at length his reasons for imposing a four-year sentence on Wayne O'Donoghue.
In a clear reference to Majella Holohan's allegations made during her victim impact statement, he stressed that his sentence was based on the evidence presented in open court and nothing else.
He said the evidence of the two pathologists called in the case was in broad agreement and it was to the effect that the injuries on Robert's body were light.
He described them as "at the horseplay end of the scale".
While highly critical of O'Donoghue's behaviour after Robert's death in covering up the killing and concealing the body, he said that charges could have been brought in relation to this, but they were not and he was not specifically punishing O'Donoghue for it in his sentencing.
He considered "genuine remorse was in play" following O'Donoghue's confession to his father.
In imposing the sentence, he said he was taking account of the effect of the crime on the Holohans as well as the fact that O'Donoghue had no previous convictions, had pleaded guilty and was not expected to reoffend.
He said he was governed by directions from the Court of Criminal Appeal, including rulings that sentencing was not about revenge.