Sentencing guidelines - Personal Mitigating Circumstances – Exceptional Circumstances

21 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

21 June 2024

The King v Michael Beattie

In this judgment the Court of Appeal provides guidance on the imposition of Sexual Offences Prevention Orders (SOPOs) at paragraphs [18] and [37].

Appeal against imposition of a SOPO – sexual activity with a child between the age of 13 and 16 - causing or inciting a child between the age of 13 and 16 to engage in sexual activity - SOPO made for five years and prohibited any contact with children under 16 of either gender or the victim who is now over 18 - whether SOPO wrong in principle and terms disproportionate - breadth of order as originally framed infringed the appellant’s family life disproportionately to risk he can be found to pose to children - substituted SOPO of same duration of five years with conditions considered necessary and proportionate – principles at paragraph [18] to be applied by judges considering imposition of SOPO in this jurisdiction - SOPO’s must be tailored to circumstances of each case and cannot be presented in formulaic way to avoid disproportionate orders being made - practitioners and judges must be cognisant of the high threshold required when considering the imposition of a SOPO - appeal allowed.

[2024] NICA 51 Keegan LCJ

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

27 May 2020

R v McGrath

Common assault and breach of restraining order – Violent Offender Prevention Order (‘VOPO’) – clarification concerning ‘qualifying offences’ for the making of a VOPO.

[2020] NICA 29 Morgan LCJ

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

16 May 2019

R v QD Director of Public Prosecution's Reference (Number 6 of 2019)

Reference by DPP NI under S. 36 Criminal Justice Act 1988 as amended by S. 41(5) Justice (NI) Act 2002 – whether sentence of 5 months’ custody unduly lenient - sexual assault of a child under 13 contrary to Article 14 of the Sexual Offences (NI) Order 2008 – whether failure to impose a SOPO unduly lenient – sentence quashed and SOPO imposed.

[2019] NICA 23 Stephens LJ

20 December 2018

R v CZ

Sexual offence prevention orders - applications made to Crown Court in respect of variations, renewals and discharge, and appeals thereafter to the Court of Appeal - demarcation between appeals in respect of SOPOs imposed as part of sentence and appeals in respect of variations, renewals and discharges - need for SOPO's to be carefully formulated

[2018] NICA 53 Maguire J

22 May 2015

R v Donna McCool and Michael Harkin

False accounting contrary to s. 17(1)(a) Theft Act (NI) 1969 - false statements contrary to s. 105A(1) of the Social Security Administration (NI) Act 1992 – imposition of confiscation orders – whether court had jurisdiction order under POCA 2002 – whether amounts confiscated proportionate – Held that 2002 Act applied but amounts disproportionate and new amounts substituted.

2015 NICA 31 Morgan LCJ

25 March 2015

R v Gerard McCormick

Sexual activity with a child – 3 year determinate sentence comprising 18 months’ imprisonment and 18 on licence – 5 year SOPO – Sentencing Court’s reliance on Sentencing Council Guidelines – guidance from decided authorities in NI more reliable than Council Guidelines - 2 year sentence substituted – 12 & 12 – whether SOPO proportionate – that issue remitted to trial court to reconsider.

2015 NICA 14 Morgan LCJ

21 January 2015

R v Gabriel Mackle

Convictions under s. 3(1)(b) of the Explosive Substances Act 1883, and article 58(1) of the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 – whether forfeiture order in respect of motorbike lawful – title to the item subject to hire purchase in brother’s name - nemo dat quod non habet – order quashed.

2015 NICA 5 Girvan LJ

18 December 2014

R v Michael Simpson

Possession of indecent child images contrary to Article 3 of the Protection of Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 – SOPO made under s.104 Sexual Offences Act 2003 – whether SOPO terms oppressive/disproportionate.

[2014] NICA 83 Coghlin LJ

15 March 2013

R v Leonard Henry Warwick

Money laundering offences, forgery, VAT fraud, mortgage fraud and deception - bank accounts in Isle of Man and NI - false identification and documents - whether confiscation order should have included accounts in own name or in fictional names - whether fruits of the accounts not enjoyed - most of monies going to others involved in the criminal enterprise.

[2013] NICA 13 Girvan LJ

29 June 2012

R v David Edwin Allingham and Freda Elizabeth Allingham and R v John McKenna

This is not a judgment but a summary of the judgment highlighting the sentencing guidance aspect of it. A link to the judgment is provided within the document.

Application for leave to appeal against Confiscation Orders and imprisonment - controlled waste kept in manner likely to cause pollution of environment or harm to human health and in or on land otherwise than under or in accordance with a Waste Management Licence - landfill tax - McKenna imprisonment appeal allowed and three years substituted for five - appeals by Allinghams and McKenna against confiscation orders in respect of benefit and evasion of tax dismissed - prosecution appeal allowed and confiscation order varied upward.

[2012] NICA 29 Higgins LJ

30 June 2011

R v Aidan Grew and Hilary Patrick McLaughlin and R v Patrick Mackle, Plunkett Mackle and Benedict Mackle

Fraudulent evasion of duty contrary to section 170(2) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 - cigarette smuggling operations - whether trial judges erred in imposing confiscation order – appropriateness of custodial sentences for these offences.

[2011] NICA 31 Girvan 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

20 May 2004

R v Peter Joseph McKiernan

Drugs offences - Proceeds of Crime (NI) Order 1996 Confiscation Order.

[2004] NICA 18 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