The Court of Appeal has dismissed Marcin Konar’s appeal against the severity of a 30-month prison sentence for possessing cannabis for sale or supply. It found no error of principle in the sentence imposed by Dublin Circuit Criminal Court, and upheld the decision not to suspend any part of it.
Konar pleaded guilty to the offence under section 15 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977. A separate possession charge under section 3 was taken into consideration at sentencing. The Circuit Court sentenced him on 2 November 2022 to two years and six months’ imprisonment, with no part suspended. He appealed, arguing that the judge had given too little credit for mitigation and had not specified a starting sentence or the discount applied.
The Court of Appeal said judges are encouraged, as best practice, to set out a structured sentencing calculation, including a headline sentence and any reduction for mitigation. They are not legally required to do so, and an unstructured approach does not by itself establish an error. In this case, the absence of a stated headline made review harder, but the appeal court said it could still assess whether the final sentence was appropriate.
Garda evidence at sentencing was that a search of an Essex Street West property in Dublin on 27 August 2020 found 847.4 grams of cannabis, valued at €16,948, along with €14,115 in cash, weighing scales, grinders, rolling papers and lists associated with dealing. Konar admitted selling cannabis for another person and said he put the proceeds in envelopes for that person. The appeal court agreed that the evidence supported an inference of dealing at a reasonably substantial level and that Konar must have profited to some degree.
The court assessed an appropriate headline sentence as four to five years and said the mitigation justified a reduction of 40% to 50%. It cited his early guilty plea, admissions, cooperation, work history, family responsibilities and low risk of reoffending. The court also noted that his cooperation was qualified: he did not identify the person he said controlled the drugs or provide assistance at that level.
The resulting range was consistent with the 30-month term imposed. The court said a five-year starting point reduced by 50% would produce that sentence; a four-year starting point with the same reduction would produce two years, a difference within the sentencing judge’s margin of appreciation.
The appeal court also rejected the complaint that no part of the sentence was suspended. It said suspension was a matter of discretion, and noted that Konar had previously received a suspended sentence for theft before committing the drug offence. The court concluded that the sentencing judge was entitled to impose an immediate custodial term and dismissed the appeal.