Sentencing guidelines - Personal Mitigating Circumstances – Exceptional Circumstances

9 results

22 November 2024

King v Thomasena Byrne

GENERAL

1. Deterrence means discouraging the offender before the court, and others, from committing offences of the kind in question and/or more generally: paras [8] – [9]

2. Every sentence has an inbuilt element of deterrence (the concept of “general deterrence”): paras [8] – [9] & [11]

3. In some cases the sentencing court may decide that deterrence of the offender and/or the public, in the sense explained in [1] above, requires particular emphasis, the consequence being that a punishment more punitive than would otherwise be merited may follow (the concept of “particular deterrence” / an “expressly deterrent sentence”): paras [11] – [13]

4. In cases belonging to the latter category, adherence to the guidance in QWL paras [102] – [103] is essential: para [14]

5. Where sentencing guidelines decisions of the NICOA incorporate an element of specific (as distinct from general) deterrence, the sentencing court must avoid double counting.

6. “ … an offender’s personal circumstances will rarely qualify to be accorded much weight, particularly in a context where a deterrent sentence is required.” (para [18] quoting QWL para [98] )

THIS CASE

7. In the fact specific context of this case. First, per para [21]

“ … the judge’s approach to the issue of personal mitigation was in substance one of applying an absolute rule and, hence, not compatible with the principles expounded above, in a context of having erroneously declared this to be a case requiring deterrence, without more. The judge should have approached the issue of personal mitigation more flexibly and, having done so, explained the weight which he had determined to allocate to it. The impugned sentencing decision is not to this effect. Furthermore, the judge’s decision is not in accordance with the QWL guidance at paras [102]–[103].”
This passage identifies two material judicial errors. The first error entailed a judicial failure to recognise that the general rule in play viz the need for a deterrent sentence normally entails attributing little weight to personal mitigation factors is not absolute in nature.

8. Second, per para [22]: The COA was influenced by the newly admitted evidence.

[2024] NICA 75

02 February 2024

The King v Fionnghuale Mary Theresa Dympha Marie Nuala Perry

The Court of Appeal sets out best sentencing practice in terrorism cases with reference to the new statutory sentencing regime at paragraphs [33] – [36].

Appeal against a sentence of four years imprisonment and 12 month licence period – collecting or making a record of information likely to be useful to a terrorist – whether sentence manifestly excessive – whether the sentence was a product of an error of law relating to the new sentencing regime – article 7 ECHR – new approach applied by sentencing judge – one year licence period applied by operation of law rather than any judicial decision or act – no error of law – court reemphasised where a deterrent sentence is required personal mitigation carries little weight – appeal dismissed

[2024] NICA 11 McCloskey LJ

10 November 2023

The King v Francis Devlin

Renewed application for leave to appeal a sentence of four years’ imprisonment – four counts of conspiracy to cheat the public revenue – sole issue of impact of imprisonment on applicant’s son – whether sentence should be suspended – Court of Appeal approved the application of the guidance in R v Petherick [2012] EWCA Crim 2214 in NI – circumstances not so exceptional to merit a suspension – public interest in deterrence – appeal dismissed

[2023] NICA 71 Keegan LCJ

24 February 2023

King v Qing Wen Lin, Long Quang Lin Lin Zheng, Zhu Lin & Yang Wu Chen

Renewed application for leave to appeal sentence – money laundering operation – Proceeds of Crime Act 2022 – whether sentences manifestly excessive – applications to receive new material granted – principle of mercy applied to two mothers - Article 8 ECHR – the offender’s personal circumstances - judge erred in confining exceptional circumstances to the offending itself - disparity in sentencing – deterrent sentences – culpability – the aggravating factors contained highly prejudicial assertions not agreed or proven – prosecution portrayal of the roles and knowledge attributed to the appellants was inconsistent - roles/rankings which the judge attributed to certain appellants were neither agreed nor proven - leave granted – appeals allowed - sentences reduced.

Guidance in relation to the following sentencing principles can be found at paragraphs [86] – [110] - mercy in sentencing, Article 8 ECHR to include reference to R v Petherick [2013] 1 WLR 1102, exceptional circumstances, the offender’s personal circumstances, disparity in sentencing, deterrent sentences and culpability.

[2023] NICA 11 McCloskey LJ

06 December 2019

Queen v Daniel Raymond Dunlop

appeal against sentence - supply of a Class A and Class B drugs (cocaine) contrary to section 4(3)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 - substantial criminal record of 61 previous convictions, three relate to possession of drugs (cannabis) - delay - approach adopted and weight accorded by the sentencing judge to the factor of the appellant’s rehabilitation were erroneous in law - appeal allowed

[2019] NICA 72 McCloskey LJ

24 February 2006

Gary McDonald, John Keith McDonald and Stephen Gary Maternaghan, Attorney General's Reference (Number 1 of 2006) (AG REF 11-13 of 2005)

Guilty pleas - need to plead at earliest opportunity.

[2006] NICA 4 Kerr LCJ

28 June 1993

Attorney General's Reference (No.2 of 1993)

Thirty month imprisonment for offence of burglary - elderly victim - suspended sentence - exceptional mitigating circumstances - whether unduly lenient.

[1993] 5 NIJB 71 Hutton LCJ

21 November 1991

R v Raymond Gerard Quigg

Making property available for use in connection with terrorism - whether sentence of 10 years manifestly excessive - weight given to the physical condition and personal history of the appellant.

[1991] 9 NIJB 38 Hutton LCJ

04 October 1991

R v Ivan Frederick Houston

Robbery of bank with imitation firearm - exceptional personal circumstance of appellant based on fact - ex police officer who had been subject to two terrorist attacks and had turned to alcohol.

R v Houston 041091 Hutton LCJ