The Supreme Court has allowed Eric Wansboro’s appeal against the revocation of suspended sentences, finding that the procedure used to bring him before the Circuit Court had been declared unconstitutional and that he was entitled to rely on that ruling while his appeal remained pending.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Dunne on 20 December 2018, concerned three sentences imposed in November 2013 for unlawful taking of a motor vehicle, drink driving and driving without insurance. The sentences were three years’ imprisonment and two six-month terms, to run concurrently, suspended on conditions including keeping the peace and being of good behaviour for three years.
In May 2014, Wansboro was involved in a road crash after attempting to turn at a junction. The rear-seat passenger died and the other occupants were injured. He later pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing death and serious bodily harm. In May 2015, the Circuit Court revoked the suspended sentences under section 99(10) of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 and imposed a five-and-a-half-year sentence for the later offence, consecutive to the earlier term. Wansboro challenged the revocation and the severity of the later sentence; the challenge to the five-and-a-half-year sentence was not pursued at the Supreme Court hearing.
In 2016, the High Court in Moore v DPP declared sections 99(9) and (10), which set out procedures for dealing with a suspended sentence after a further conviction, unconstitutional. The issue in Wansboro’s appeal was whether he could rely on that ruling. The Supreme Court distinguished cases where a person’s conduct or choices during proceedings had barred a later challenge. It found no such conduct in Wansboro’s case and said the pending appeal meant the proceedings had not reached finality.
The Court concluded that the Circuit Court judge lacked jurisdiction to revoke the suspended sentences through the method used to bring Wansboro before the court, and that there had been a want of due process. It allowed the appeal. The judgment did not decide whether the sentences should ultimately be revoked. It said section 99(17) remained in force and that the matter could be brought back before the appropriate court under that provision. The Court said it would hear the parties further on whether to remit the sentencing issue; the Director of Public Prosecutions could consider whether to seek that course.