Judgment: 2018-04-23 · Court archive

Court of Appeal cuts Dowdalls’ prison terms after finding sentencing errors

The court said the Special Criminal Court wrongly reduced credit for guilty pleas following a Newton hearing, and failed to account properly for the complainant’s two-hour ordeal. It resentenced both men and suspended part of each lead sentence.

Court of Appeal ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Jonathan Dowdall
  • Patrick Dowdall (Appellant)
What

The court said the Special Criminal Court wrongly reduced credit for guilty pleas following a Newton hearing, and failed to account properly for the complainant’s two-hour ordeal. It resentenced both men and suspended part of each lead sentence.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The Court of Appeal resentenced Jonathan Dowdall and Patrick Dowdall after finding that the Special Criminal Court made errors of principle when sentencing them for false imprisonment and threats to kill or cause serious harm.

The Court of Appeal resentenced Jonathan Dowdall and Patrick Dowdall after finding that the Special Criminal Court made errors of principle when sentencing them for false imprisonment and threats to kill or cause serious harm.

The men had pleaded guilty. In June 2017, the Special Criminal Court imposed sentences of 12 years and four years on Jonathan Dowdall, and eight years and three years on Patrick Dowdall. Those sentences followed a hearing to resolve disputed facts relevant to sentencing, known as a Newton hearing.

The Court of Appeal said the sentencing court was not justified in criticising the application for that hearing or reducing the credit for the guilty pleas because the complainant had been cross-examined. It found that the hearing established matters of significance in the appellants’ favour, including that the detention lasted about two hours rather than the three hours previously reported. The duration of the complainant’s ordeal was relevant to the gravity of the offending, the court said.

The appeal court also found that describing the guilty pleas as entered at a “very late stage” was unfair. The pleas had been entered almost two months before the scheduled trial. It noted that additional charges had earlier been brought and then dropped, which may have justified some delay.

The court upheld the original headline sentences: 14 years and six years for Jonathan Dowdall, and 11 years and six years for Patrick Dowdall. It said the offences were especially serious and the headline terms were within the sentencing court’s discretion. But it allowed greater discounts for mitigation, including the pleas, genuine remorse and lack of relevant previous convictions. It also considered Patrick Dowdall’s age and serious health problems.

For Jonathan Dowdall, the court imposed 10 years on count one, suspending the final two years on conditions, and four years on count two. For Patrick Dowdall, it imposed seven years on count one, suspending the final three years on similar conditions, and three years on count two. The sentences were concurrent and dated from the same date as directed by the Special Criminal Court.

In a postscript, the court said it later altered Jonathan Dowdall’s count-one sentence to 10 years, with the final two years and one month suspended for three years after release. Counsel had submitted that a net custodial term of less than eight years might improve his prospects of temporary release. The judgment does not record any decision on temporary release.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review