Regina v. Nathan finn - (03 Apr 2019)

Sentencer need to observe a degree of flexibility rather than adopting a mechanistic type of approach while imposing sentence

Criminal

This judgment deals with an application for leave to appeal by Nathan Finn, currently in custody in Hydebank Young Offenders Centre, against a determinate custodial sentence of nine years imposed upon him following his plea of guilty to the charge of causing death by dangerous driving contrary to Article 9 of the Road Traffic (NI) Order, 1995. Concurrent sentences were imposed of six months for driving without insurance; one month for driving without a licence and four months each for failing to stop following an accident in which someone was injured, failing to remain at the scene and failing to report the accident. A six year driving disqualification was also imposed. The sentences were divided 50% as to custody and 50% as to licence.

In R v Stewart, present Court laid down the approach to sentencing which should be adopted to allow transparency. The proper approach is to identify the impact of all of the aggravating and mitigating factors to determine the starting point before applying the reduction for any plea. In that way both the aggravating and mitigating factors are subject to the same treatment. This Court made clear in McGinn that youth is a significant mitigating factor but that the weight to be given to it should take into account the circumstances of the offender and the nature and facts of the case.

The appalling driving of this young offender, Nathan Finn, caused the tragic death of Lesley Ann McCarragher in April 2016. No sentence imposed by the courts on the applicant can bring her back or lessen her absence for her grieving family and friends. It is the duty of the Court to dispassionately consider the justice of the sentence for the offences committed in the light of all the circumstances and the previous decisions of this Court.

The learned trial judge did not give credit for two significant mitigation factors in fixing the starting point for sentencing here, i.e. the absence of previous convictions and the genuine remorse of the applicant.

The Court concludes, pursuant to statute, that the starting point for sentence, ought to have been no more than 10 years’ imprisonment. The discount of 2 years for the plea imposed by the judge can properly be applied to that revised starting point giving him an effective sentence of 8 years imprisonment of which half is to be served in custody, the maximum allowed by legislation, and half on licence.

Tags : SENTENCE QUANTUM JUSTICE