The High Court has refused to quash a six-month detention sentence imposed on a minor for stealing mobile phones, finding no error in the Circuit Court’s handling of evidence about alleged misconduct after the offences.
The judicial review concerned the Circuit Court’s November 2019 decision on the minor’s appeal from a District Court sentence. The minor had pleaded guilty to stealing three phones and causing minor criminal damage in three incidents in Cork in late 2017 and early 2018. The District Court sentenced him to six months’ detention in July 2019.
The review was initially allowed to proceed on the ground that the Circuit Court judge had considered one occasion of post-conviction misconduct mentioned in a probation report, despite no conviction for that conduct. After the hearing transcript was obtained, it showed that two garda sergeants had given uncontested evidence of several alleged incidents since the District Court hearing, including thefts, driving and handling offences, and a car chase on the M1 that crossed into Northern Ireland and required PSNI assistance. One witness referred to at least 10 further offences. The allegations had not resulted in convictions.
The High Court said post-offence misconduct may be relevant to put an offence in context or to reduce or remove mitigation based on good behaviour. If challenged, an allegation must be formally proved before being admitted. Such evidence cannot be used to increase a sentence, because the accused could face punishment for the later conduct if charged and convicted.
In this case, the court found the evidence was relevant to correcting the positive probation report’s mistaken impression that there had been only one incident of negative attention from gardaí. The allegations were not disputed at the sentencing hearing or in the judicial review, and the court said the presumption of innocence did not arise for consideration on these facts.
The High Court said the Circuit Court judge had referred specifically to the minor’s numerous previous convictions, but did not refer to the details of the new allegations when imposing sentence. The judge affirmed the District Court order and did not increase the six-month term. The High Court concluded that the evidence had been considered in assessing the probation recommendation, not to aggravate the sentence, and refused certiorari.