Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Legal Precedent

  • 06-12-2019 7:57pm
    #1
    Don Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 40 ✭


    Hello legal people, hope you can throw some light for me on legal precedence.

    If a person is convicted of X crime with no previous convictions, where maximum time is 20 years for that crime, and there was a previous unrelated case of similar circumstances where the convicted was given 14 years, does that mean that 14 years is in effect now the new maximum where circumstances are deemed very similar?


Comments

  • #2
    Don Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 40 ✭Don Joe


    I guess I'm asking, is a sentencing judge bound by what went before him always? If in above example, could he give 16 years in a case where circumstances were near identical a 14 year sentence was given, or would it be revised down on appeal due to precedence?


  • #3
    Irishphotodesk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,896 ✭✭✭Irishphotodesk


    Don Joe wrote: »
    I guess I'm asking, is a sentencing judge bound by what went before him always? If in above example, could he give 16 years in a case where circumstances were near identical a 14 year sentence was given, or would it be revised down on appeal due to precedence?

    Every case is different, there is a mandatory minimum of 10yrs for section 15a (possession of over 13,500 worth of drugs I think) .... yet due to different stories told by legals (drug/drink addiction, now on a course to get clean, going through difficult time in life, under peer pressure, was taken advantage of etc, is now expecting a baby -wants to change their ways etc ).

    I believe there are very few cases which have actually received the minimum sentencing.


  • #4
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,574 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Don Joe wrote: »
    I guess I'm asking, is a sentencing judge bound by what went before him always?
    No. While judges are normally bound by higher courts and will usually follow what an equal(?) court has said, it is open to a judge to say that previous judgements have been in error. However, the longer and more consistent the precedent is, the more likely it is to be respected.

    Sentences are usually expressed as maximum, i.e. if someone commits crime X, their sentence will be one not exceeding Y years. This would be the sentence received by a person who has not cooperated with the investigation, plead not guilty, there were exacerbating factors and no mitigating factors. The least sentence would be given to someone who is the opposite of this.


Advertisement