Sentencing for old crimes?

dulpit

Hey all,

I was reading about how most laws can't be applied retrospectively if newly added, and it got me thinking - if there is a law here for a mandatory sentence for some crime, and somebody is found guilty of that crime, but that crime happened a long time ago before the mandatory sentences came in - is the judge obliged to use the mandatory?

Similarly, if a crime was more severe in the past than it is now, would the time of the crime or the time of the trial be more relevant?

Credit Checker Moose

The law at the time of the offence applies.

coylemj

dulpit wrote: »

Similarly, if a crime was more severe in the past than it is now, would the time of the crime or the time of the trial be more relevant?

Can't answer your question on mandatory sentencing but your question above got me thinking of the practicalities around the enactment of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001 and, in particular, the fact that it repealed the Larceny Act 1916 which covered most forms of theft, burglary and robbery.

It's pretty clear on the issue of previous offences and states that any act repealed would still apply in relation to offences committed before the Theft Act 2001 came into force.....

65.—(1) This Act, save as otherwise provided by it, shall, as regards offences under any of its provisions, have effect only in relation to offences wholly or partly committed on or after the commencement of any such provision.

(2) No repeal or amendment by this Act of any enactment relating to procedure or evidence or to the jurisdiction or powers of any court or to the effect of a conviction shall affect the operation of the enactment in relation to offences committed before the commencement of this Act or to proceedings for any such offence.

But there are often situations where someone is charged with an offence committed on a date or dates unknown between (earliest date) and (latest date) - what if that period straddled the commencement of the Theft Act 2001? Which act would apply and what if the later act upgraded or downgraded the offence and changed the maximum penalty?

Turns out that the person can be charged 'in the alternative' (a legal each-way bet) with offences under the old and new acts and if the evidence is sufficient to convict them under either act but it isn't clear which act would apply (they clearly can't be convicted of both offences) then they can be convicted under the earlier act (in this case the Larceny Act 1916) but the maximum penalty that can be imposed is the lesser one that applies to the two charges. So you can be convicted under the Larceny Act 1916 but if the penalty for that offence was reduced by the Theft Act 2001, the lower maximum penalty would apply.

65. (3) If—

(a) a person is charged in the alternative with having committed an offence under a statute or rule of law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act and an offence under this Act, and

(b) it is proved that the person did acts which would constitute either of the offences charged, but it is not proved whether those acts were done before or after such commencement,

the person may be convicted of the first-mentioned offence but shall not be liable to a penalty greater than the lesser of the maximum penalties provided for the two offences with which the person was charged.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/act/pub/0050/print.html#sec65