The High Court dismissed a prisoner’s application for judicial review of the structure of sentences imposed across four criminal bills, finding the sentences valid and his detention lawful on the papers before it.
In a judgment delivered on 28 May 2008, Mr Justice Charleton said the applicant had asked for judicial review or an inquiry into the lawfulness of his detention under Article 40.4.1 of the Constitution. The complaint concerned sentences imposed on 1 November 2007 by Judge Delahunt. The applicant had pleaded guilty to the offences.
The sentences covered four bills. For two robbery counts under the first bill, the applicant received concurrent three-year terms dating from 23 June 2006. A further robbery conviction carried a five-year term to begin after the first bill’s sentence, with the final two years suspended. The third bill resulted in a three-year sentence for attempted robbery, to begin after the preceding bill’s sentence.
The fourth bill contained 12 counts. The court imposed a three-year sentence for robbery, six months for unlawfully using a mechanically propelled vehicle and 12 months for dangerous driving. Those terms ran concurrently and began after the sentence on the previous bill. Nine other counts were taken into consideration. The judgment also records an assault or obstruction of a police officer count among the offences on that bill.
Charleton said the sentencing structure was complex but valid, and had been designed to impose just punishment while allowing for rehabilitation. He rejected the argument that later indictments and warrants should be struck down, finding the first indictment and warrant in order and applying the same principle to the others. He also found that the sentencing judge had not exceeded the applicable statutory limit for an offence charged at common law as an attempt.
The judge described the prison authorities’ method of calculating time served: they apply the 25% remission for good behaviour to the relevant custodial terms, convert the resulting periods into days and add consecutive sentences. Suspended portions are excluded from the custodial calculation; remission may be lost for bad conduct.
The court said there was nothing before it indicating that the authorities had calculated the sentence incorrectly. It held that the applicant was in lawful custody on the papers before it and dismissed the application.