The Court of Appeal has dismissed Michael Collins’s appeal against the refusal to quash a sentence that suspended its final four months for five years.
In a judgment delivered on 4 December 2018, Ms Justice Kennedy said the Criminal Justice Act 2006 places no statutory maximum on how long a prison sentence may be suspended. The court affirmed the High Court’s orders, leaving in place its refusal of certiorari and declaratory relief.
Collins had pleaded guilty in the District Court to three counts of handling stolen property. He was sentenced to a cumulative ten months in prison. On appeal, the Circuit Court suspended the final four months for five years and disqualified him from driving for two years. His judicial review challenge concerned the suspended prison term; he did not appeal the refusal to quash the driving disqualification.
Collins argued that the five-year period was disproportionate, particularly because the District Court’s maximum aggregate custodial sentence was two years. He also relied on an earlier decision that described suspending a sentence for longer than the custodial term as generally undesirable without special circumstances. The Director of Public Prosecutions opposed the appeal.
The Court of Appeal said the 2006 Act is a comprehensive code for suspended sentences and contains no maximum suspension period or requirement for special circumstances. It said the sentencing judge need not expressly refer to special circumstances, but must have evidence on which to base the chosen period.
The court considered both constitutional proportionality and proportionality in the sentencing sense. It noted that the only condition imposed was the statutory requirement to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The sentencing judge had referred to Collins’s personal circumstances, a risk assessment indicating a moderate risk of reoffending within 12 months, and his view that receiving stolen property was a significant temptation for Collins.
The court found no error in the High Court’s conclusion that the suspension period was not so disproportionate as to make the sentence unfair, void, contrary to law or beyond jurisdiction. It said the operational period may be longer than the custodial term, provided the decision is based on evidence and reflects the sentencing judge’s proper exercise of discretion. The appeal was dismissed and the High Court orders affirmed.