Professional Documents
Culture Documents
four courts 1
As noted earlier the decision on what charges to prefer is a matter for the DPP. It will
often happen that charges will already have been preferred against the accused by the
Garda Siochana before the case is sent on to the DPPs office. The DPP can maintain
these charges or he may change them. Although he is under no obligation to charge the
most serious offences that the evidence will bear, it is normal practice to do so. Equally,
it is normal practice for the indictment to include lesser offences as a fallback position.
The need for this practice has declined in recent years as a result of developments in the
law which permit a jury to bring in a verdict of guilty to a lesser offence which is not
specified on the indictment but which is supported by the allegations contained in the
indictment.
The trial judge enjoys a broad power to remedy any defects in the indictment at any
stage of the trial so long as he is satisfied that any such amendment would not cause
injustice to the accused (Sect. 6 subs. 1 Criminal Justice (Administration) Act, 1924).
This power is normally used to cure technical defects in the indictment. It might also be
used to add a new charge to the indictment or to substitute an existing charge on the
indictment. Such changes will be triggered by an application from the DPP and will only
be accepted by the judge if he is satisfied that they will not cause prejudice to the
accused. In the Irish adversarial trial system it is highly unlikely that the judge would
move on his own initiative to make such a substantial change on the indictment.
Moreover, it is virtually impossible to foresee a situation in which he would add or
substitute a more serious charge than any already included in the indictment.
Both prosecution and defense counsel will make closing addresses to the jury. The
purpose of these addresses is to summarise their respective cases in the light of the
evidence and arguments adduced at the trial. The actually summing up of the evidence
for both sides is done by the judge when counsel for the prosecution and defense have
completed their addresses.
Since the jury does not have any function in the matter of sentence, the issue of what
sentence should or should not be applied would not normally arise in the course of the
prosecutions address to the jury. The issue of what sentence to impose upon conviction
is a matter solely for the judge. Before imposing sentence the judge will listen to
representations from defense counsel in favour of leniency. As a result of a recent
change in the law, the judge is also bound to receive evidence from the victim about the
impact that the offence has had on his life if the victim requests to give such evidence
(Sect. 5 subs. 1 Criminal Justice Act, 1993). (People (DPP) v MC, Court of Criminal
Appeal, June 16, 1995). There has never been a practice in Ireland of the prosecution
making representations to the court in favour of a heavy sentence, or any particular type
of sentence (People (DPP) v Sheedy, Court of Criminal Appeal, October 15, 1999). Their
role is normally confined to giving a summary of the facts surrounding the commission of
the offence (in a case where the accused has pleaded guilty) and a statement of the
accuseds criminal record. As will be seen below, however, the prosecution now has the
power to seek a review of the sentence imposed by the judge if they consider that it is
too lenient.
Editor