It was undesirable for pre-trial discussions to take place between a trial judge, lawyers for the State and an accused, the Supreme Court said yesterday when reducing a sex offender's sentence from 10 to six years.
The man had pleaded guilty to unlawful carnal knowledge and sexual assault involving six girls who, at the time of the offences, were 12 and 13. He was in his early 40s.
He had been sentenced by Dublin Circuit Criminal Court to six years' imprisonment. The Court of Criminal Appeal later increased this to 10 years on an application by the DPP, who claimed the sentence was unduly lenient.
The Court of Criminal Appeal asked the Supreme Court's view on two matters. First, if the DPP applies to have a sentence increased, should the court have regard to the concept of "double jeopardy" (a person being tried again in respect of a charge of which they had already been acquitted)?
Second, should the court take into account that discussions took place between the trial judge and lawyers for both sides in the judge's chambers before the trial, following which the accused changed his plea to guilty?
Giving the Supreme Court's decision yesterday, the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Keane, said the concept of double jeopardy was not relevant to an adjudication by the Court of Criminal Appeal on an application by the DPP for a review of a sentence. There was no question of a person being tried again.
He noted the Supreme Court was told the DPP had, in 1998, directed that the practice of meetings in judges' chambers before criminal trials should be discontinued.
While such a procedure had been described as "plea bargaining", that appeared to be a misnomer, he said. Any indication by a judge as to what sentence he might impose in the event of a plea of guilty would be subject to the proviso that the judge might reach a different view depending on the evidence subsequently heard in court.
The Court of Criminal Appeal was not correct in declining to have regard to the discussion before the trial.
Even if the DPP was able to satisfy the court that the sentence was unduly lenient, the court was required to have regard to the chain of circumstances in which the DPP participated and which led to the defendant pleading guilty and to the imposition of the six-year sentence.