Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Duffy,  IECA 53, March 8, 2022, at paragraph 8:
The tenor, in substance, of the submissions made here on the behalf of the respondent was that the fact that the injured party was of a forgiving nature, did not seek vengeance and was inferred to be content with the sentence, were relevant; further we were informed that in the immediate aftermath of sentencing the victim communicated with the respondent in sympathetic terms and wished him well. It was contended that the victim did not want to see the respondent imprisoned; the very limited extent to which the views of the victim can be relevant (and the general rule is that they are not) is dealt with in DPP v R.O’D  4 IR 361. We need not elaborate on this issue here as, whatever else, there is no clear or coherent evidence as to his present view; criminal proceedings are between the prosecutor and the accused. The respondent should be dealt with in accordance with legally relevant sentencing principles and we do not think that such factors can be relied upon in mitigation at least in the present case. The fact that the victim did not seek to influence the court has no significance one way or another.