Almost half of all convicted criminals who appeal the severity of their sentence are successful in appeals to the Court of Appeal.
An analysis of a database of Court of Appeal rulings on challenges against the severity of sentence over the past decade shows 47 per cent of appeals by individuals seeking a reduction in their prison sentence were allowed.
The analysis also reveals that the Director of Public Prosecutions is successful in almost three-quarters of all challenges taken to the Court of Appeal on grounds of undue leniency in sentencing.
It shows a longer term of imprisonment than the original sentence to reflect the gravity of the offending was secured in 72 per cent of appeals initiated by the DPP.
The database, which has been published by the Judicial Council, contains almost 950 rulings of the Court of Appeal since its establishment in 2014 which relate to a challenge to the sentence imposed by a lower court.
Almost 7 out of 10 cases relating to sentences before the Court of Appeal are appeals by convicted offenders with approximately 30 per cent initiated by the DPP.
In practice, appeals by convicted offenders against the severity of their sentence are occasionally withdrawn at a late stage after they are advised by the Court of the Appeal that the three-judge court can also increase the term of their imprisonment.
Sexual offences including rape are the most common type of crime for which convicted parties appeal the severity of their sentence.
They account for over a quarter of all appeals taken by offenders over the past ten years – a total of 180 cases – with 51% of challenges being allowed.
Individuals convicted of drug offences form the second largest type of appeal group, accounting for 15% of all cases against severity of sentence before the Court of Appeal.
However, only just over a third of appeals relating to drug offences are successful.
Similarly, people convicted of firearms offences and robbery also had the least successful rates in trying to have their sentences reduced with only around a third of such cases having their appeal upheld.
In contrast, the highest success rates in challenges against original sentences occur in cases relating to dangerous or negligent acts which mostly relate to incidents of dangerous driving causing death or harm.
Appeals against the severity of sentence for offences such as dangerous driving were upheld in 63% cases followed closely by challenges to sentences for violent disorder (60 per cent).
The analysis shows that the DPP has taken the most number of challenges against sentences on grounds of undue leniency in relation to convictions for assault.
Together with appeals over sentences for sexual offences and drug convictions, they account for over half of all appeals by the DPP.
The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the DPP in approximately 7 out of 10 of such cases.
All five appeals taken by the DPP over claims that the sentencing judge was unduly lenient in cases where someone was convicted of false imprisonment were successful.
In one case, Mark McCarthy (37) of Ballyfermot, Dublin who participated in a “tiger kidnapping” and post office robbery involving a family with a 10-week-old baby, had his prison sentence of nine years increased to 15 years following an appeal by the State prosecutor.
The DPP was also successful in approximately 9 out of every 10 appeals relating to sentences for dangerous driving, burglaries and robberies.
However, the DPP only had its appeal upheld in approximately 40% of challenges to sentences imposed on individuals convicted of manslaughter.
Among the objectives of the Judicial Council, which was established in 2019, is to provide guidelines and information on sentencing to members of the judiciary.
Current advice prepared by the Council’s sentencing committee contains a series of guideline judgements which set out headline sentences for a range of offences.
A study commissioned by the Judicial Council last year found that current data on sentencing in Ireland is “profoundly limited and inadequate.”
The report prepared by a research team at the University of Strathclyde in Scotland highlighted significant problems with the level of data available in the Republic on sentences for convicted offenders.
The report found data relevant to sentencing in Ireland is not sufficiently detailed or comprehensive enough to provide an accurate portrait of current sentencing practices.
It said deficits in such information were particularly acute at District Court level where the overwhelming majority of cases are heard.
The report said data collected by criminal justice agencies such as An Garda Síochána, and the Courts Service, while undoubtedly useful, were still inadequate for the specific purpose of providing a meaningful or accurate picture of sentencing practices.
“The kind of reliable, comprehensive and up-to-date data needed to identify sentencing patterns for particular offences is absent,” it observed.
