The High Court has allowed a judicial review brought by Jakub Kedzierski over whether he could be required to serve a suspended prison sentence after its three-year suspension period had expired.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons delivered judgment on 25 June 2021. He held that the terms of the Circuit Court order imposing the sentence meant the applicant had to be called on to serve it within the three-year period. The court found that the later amendments to the law did not change the effect of that earlier order.
In 2015, the applicant pleaded guilty to two counts of possessing controlled drugs for supply. The Circuit Court imposed a two-year prison sentence, suspended for three years, on condition that he keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The order also required him to come up to serve the sentence if called on within those three years.
He was arrested in February 2017 and later charged with offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act. He was convicted of one offence on 6 February 2019 and fined €1,000. The judgment records that the conviction came after the suspension period had expired, although the conduct giving rise to the charge occurred during that period.
The Criminal Justice (Suspended Sentences of Imprisonment) Act 2017 took effect on 11 January 2019. Among other changes, it extended the relevant period by 12 months and allowed proceedings for a later offence to be instituted within that period, without requiring a conviction within it.
The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that the amended law allowed the suspended sentence to be activated. The applicant argued that, under the earlier law and the wording of the Circuit Court order, the possibility of activation ended when the three years expired. The court agreed with the applicant, holding that the order’s time limit had not been displaced by the amendments.
The judge also addressed the statutory procedure under the earlier version of the law. He concluded that the alternative revocation procedure was available only while the suspension period was running. He further held that the amendments did not clearly provide for removing a right that had accrued when the applicant’s obligation to serve the sentence ended.
The judgment’s conclusion was limited to interpreting the amendments: it did not decide whether legislation expressly reviving such an obligation would be constitutional. The judicial review was allowed. The judge proposed listing the case on 2 July 2021 for final orders and consideration of costs; the judgment does not record those final orders.