A seven-year jail sentence imposed on a Dublin girl for the murder of chip shop owner Franco Sacco has been suspended, on conditions, by the Court of Criminal Appeal.
Mr Justice O'Flaherty observed that the difficulty with the sentence imposed was that there appeared to be no appropriate place of detention for young women.
The court's decision means the girl is expected to be freed next week on the basis of entering into a bond to adhere to a probationary regime for the next three years and be of good behaviour for seven years.
The girl, who was 16 years old when sentenced at the Central Criminal Court in June last, had pleaded guilty to the murder of Mr Sacco (29), at a house at Coolamber Park, Templeogue, Dublin, more than a year earlier, on March 20th, 1997.
At the Court of Criminal Appeal yesterday, Mr Michael McDowell SC, for the girl, applied for leave to appeal against the severity of the sentence imposed.
The court heard that the girl was at present in Oberstown House detention centre. However she was approaching her 17th birthday and could not remain there more than another week. Mr McDowell said the alternative of having her detained at Mountjoy women's prison was inappropriate.
The three-judge court, presided over by Mr Justice O'Flaherty, decided that the girl's sentence should be suspended within the next week, when she would be due to leave Oberstown, on condition that she entered a bond to abide by a probationary regime for three years and be of good behaviour for seven years.
She is to return before the Central Criminal Court within the next week to enter into the bond.
Mr Justice O'Flaherty said that plans should be made to produce a good probationary regime to get the girl on the road to rehabilitation with the assistance of her mother and her stepfather. Lawyers acting for the girl would have to take an interest in the regime for the next three years.
The Court of Criminal Appeal ruled that the girl should not be identified by the media and that statements made by her should not receive any publicity.
Giving the judgment of the court, Mr Justice O'Flaherty, who sat with Mr Justice Lavan and Mr Justice McCracken, said the difficulty about the sentence which had been imposed was that there was no place of detention for young women.
The accused had been in Oberstown House since early May but she would have to leave it shortly. The only place she could go was Mountjoy women's prison which would be a totally unsuitable environment for her.
s against that, the court had to weigh the sanctity of life and the fact that a life had been "snuffed out", admittedly in what were extraordinary circumstances. It had been submitted that the sentence which had been imposed had too much emphasis on the necessity to be a determinate sentence and not enough on the rehabilitative aspect.
But the Court of Criminal Appeal was satisfied the trial judge had balanced the two. He had emphasised there would have to be a determinate sentence but that was in the context of the seriousness of the offence and that a life had been taken. He had taken account of mitigating circumstances.
In his submissions, Mr McDowell said that if his client was sent to Mountjoy women's prison she would have to be kept separate from the other prisoners. This, in effect would be solitary confinement.
The State had never provided a place of detention in recent times for someone in his client's position. He could undertake that his client would conform completely with any probationary regime put in place, counsel added. Mr Peter Charleton SC, for the Director of Public Prosecutions, said a court fixed the term of detention while the Minister for Justice fixed the place. The matter which seemed to be at the core of the sentence was the unprecedented nature of the means by which the offence was committed.