The Court of Criminal Appeal has ruled that it is the appropriate court to consider whether to revoke all or part of Anthony Foley’s suspended sentence after offences committed in 2009. It held that it had no jurisdiction to consider revocation on the basis of offences committed in February 2007, before the court made its sentencing order.
The ruling concerned two preliminary jurisdiction issues under section 99 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006, as amended. The court did not decide whether the suspended sentence should be revoked.
Foley had been sentenced in the Circuit Criminal Court in Dublin in October 2006 after being convicted of handling a stolen Volvo and pleading guilty to two false imprisonment offences. The Circuit Court imposed 12 months for the handling offence and seven years for each false imprisonment offence, consecutive to the 12-month sentence. It suspended all three sentences on conditions, including keeping the peace and being of good behaviour for five years.
On an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Court of Criminal Appeal reviewed those sentences in April 2007. It left the total eight-year sentence in place but ordered that five years be suspended, subject to the existing conditions. The warrant recorded seven-year sentences on the two false imprisonment counts, to run concurrently and begin after the sentence on the handling count, with the final five years suspended.
Foley was later convicted in the District Court of eight road traffic offences committed in February 2007, handling cartons of cigarettes in January 2009, and possessing a screwdriver with intent that it be used in a vehicle theft in June 2009. The Director conceded that the court could not consider revocation based on the February 2007 offences, because they predated the April 2007 order suspending the sentence. The court accepted that position, saying the 2009 amendment clarified that a triggering offence must be committed after the suspension order.
For the 2009 offences, the court rejected Foley’s argument that an earlier decision, The People (Attorney General) v Grimes, meant the Court of Criminal Appeal had completed its role once it changed the sentence. It distinguished that case: here, the court had quashed the Circuit Court sentence and imposed a replacement sentence under the 1993 Act. For the purposes of section 99, it was therefore the court that made the relevant suspension order.
The court concluded that it was the appropriate court to deal with any revocation, in whole or in part, of the suspended portion of Foley’s sentence. The judgment resolves which court has jurisdiction; it does not record a decision revoking the suspension or determine the sentence Foley must serve.