The Court of Criminal Appeal made no order on an application concerning the suspended part of Robert Devine’s sentence, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to consider revocation because the statutory remand procedure had not been followed.
Devine had pleaded guilty in October 2006 to possessing a firearm. He received a two-year prison sentence. On an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Court of Criminal Appeal reviewed that sentence as allegedly unduly lenient and, in December 2007, substituted a four-year term. The final two years were suspended, subject to a bond to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for two years.
The judgment records that Devine later appeared before Clonmel District Court and pleaded guilty to a number of further charges. It says he received a three-month prison term for one public-order offence, while the remaining offences were taken into consideration. The District Court remanded him to the Court of Criminal Appeal for the purposes of section 99 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006.
The appeal court explained that, under section 99 as amended, the District Court should have remanded Devine to it before imposing sentence. The appeal court could then decide whether to revoke all or part of the suspended sentence and remit the matter to the District Court for sentencing on the later offences.
That sequence did not happen. The District Court imposed sentence before remanding Devine, and the appeal court said the District Court had no jurisdiction to do so without first complying with the statutory procedure. The appeal court also concluded that its own jurisdiction to consider revocation depended on a remand made in accordance with the law. Because that had not occurred, it had no jurisdiction to carry out the revocation function.
The court said it would have been necessary to set aside the District Court’s orders and make a compliant remand order for its jurisdiction to arise. It did not do so in this application. Its disposition was: “the court will make no order on this application.” The judgment therefore records no decision revoking the suspended sentence.