The Court of Appeal activated two years of the five years of James Cronin’s sentence that had been suspended, finding that he had not complied with the conditions attached to the suspension. The judgment’s final paragraph begins considering when the activation should take effect but ends before recording the court’s decision on that question.
The judgment, delivered by Birmingham P. on 2 October 2018, arose after the Probation Service brought the matter back before the court. Cronin had originally been sentenced to seven years for rape offences. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeal replaced that sentence with a ten-year term, with five years suspended on conditions. A separate five-year sentence on Count 5 was to run concurrently. The suspension bond required Cronin to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, remain under Probation Service supervision for five years after release, and follow instructions concerning an alcohol programme and psychiatric counselling. A seven-year post-release supervision order also remained in force.
The Probation Service said Cronin made it difficult to discuss his offending behaviour and had consumed alcohol on several occasions, including at least one occasion when he was clearly very intoxicated. It raised concerns that drinking could affect his medication or lead him to miss doses. The judgment says the factual matters raised were not disputed. Cronin’s counsel submitted that reluctance to discuss offending on the assumption of guilt was understandable because Cronin had maintained his innocence, pleaded not guilty and appealed his conviction.
The court considered errors on the bond, including an incorrect court reference, an incorrect reference to the judge who imposed the original sentence, and the bond’s signature by a Peace Commissioner rather than before the Governor as the order required. It rejected the argument that those errors deprived it of jurisdiction, saying the order primarily benefited Cronin by suspending part of his sentence.
On the merits, the court shared the Probation Service’s concerns about alcohol, disinhibition and medication. It said full activation would be unduly harsh, noting that Cronin had not reoffended for a significant period after release and that a later offence was of a different character. It ordered two years of the suspended term to be served, bringing the sentence he was required to serve to seven years.
The judgment states that the court considered three possible effective dates: when the matter was first brought back, the date of the judgment, or the date of the sentence on a burglary matter. The supplied text ends before stating which date was ordered.