The Court of Appeal has suspended the final 18 months of concurrent seven-year prison sentences imposed on James Farmer for two drug offences, after finding that his serious medical problems were given insufficient weight at sentencing.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 11 June 2015, the court allowed his appeal against the severity of the sentences to that extent. The suspended period is subject to the usual conditions, for the remainder of his time in custody and for two years after release.
Farmer had pleaded guilty to two offences under section 15(A) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977, as amended. On the day he was sentenced, he also pleaded guilty to an offence under section 15, which the sentencing court took into consideration. The two seven-year terms were imposed on 27 February 2012 at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court and were to run concurrently.
The Court of Appeal said the offences involved drugs worth more than €400,000. Gardaí had observed Farmer and a co-accused transferring boxes between cars in an Aldi supermarket car park at Newlands Cross, Dublin. After the cars were stopped, cannabis resin worth €122,083 was found in Farmer’s vehicle. A later search found drug paraphernalia at his home. In a car parked outside, for which Farmer had the key, officers found cannabis herb worth €289,164, as well as cannabis resin and cocaine worth €23,000.
The court said gardaí believed Farmer was a low-level participant involved in moving and storing drugs for others, but his role was crucial to the operation. It noted his early acknowledgement of involvement and cooperation with gardaí, agreeing with the sentencing judge that these circumstances justified departing from the statutory ten-year minimum sentence.
The judgment described Farmer’s medical history as including kidney failure requiring dialysis, a severe bowel disorder and a kidney transplant in 2011. His condition was generally manageable in prison, the court was told, but his bowel condition caused daily difficulties and his confinement increased his risk of infection.
The court held that the sentencing judge had made an error of principle by giving insufficient weight to the medical problems and the added difficulties they caused in custody. It said that, setting those problems aside, the seven-year prison term without suspension was entirely appropriate. The appeal changed only the final 18 months of the concurrent terms.