Case Number

CrimFH 1187/03

Date Decided

3-31-2005

Decision Type

Appellate

Document Type

Full Opinion

Abstract

Facts: In two unrelated cases, the prosecution and the defence made a plea bargain in the trial court that was subsequently rejected by the trial court, and the respondents were given stricter sentences than the ones recommended to the court in the plea bargain. The respondents appealed against the strictness of the sentences. In the appeals, which were heard jointly, the state defended the sentences that were handed down by the trial courts, rather than the plea bargains that were originally made by the state. The appeals were allowed, but the court expressed different views on the question whether the state should defend, in an appeal, a plea bargain that was rejected by the trial court, or whether it should defend the sentence handed down by the trial court. The state therefore petitioned the Supreme Court to hold a further hearing to clarify the issue of how the prosecution should act in such cases. The petition to hold a further hearing was granted, and the matter was considered by an expanded panel of nine justices.

Held: As a rule, the prosecution should defend a plea bargain in the court of appeal, even when it was rejected by the trial court. In exceptional cases the prosecution should be allowed at the appeal stage to be released from its undertaking in the plea bargain, when considerations of the public interest override all the considerations that support the prosecution abiding by its undertaking in the plea bargain. In the opinion of Justice Grunis, in these exceptional cases the accused should be allowed to retract his guilty plea.

Petition denied.

Keywords

Administrative Law -- Discretion, Administrative Law -- Judicial review, Courts

Download

Share

COinS