The High Court has rejected a challenge to the mandatory minimum sentence for a qualifying repeat firearms offence, refusing declarations that the relevant provision of the Firearms Act was unconstitutional or incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
In a judgment delivered on 9 May 2016, Mr Justice Twomey held that the Oireachtas could provide for a minimum term of five years that a sentencing judge could not suspend. He found a rational relationship between that penalty and the requirements of justice, given the seriousness of the offences covered and the stated aim of addressing gun crime.
The applicant, Wayne Ellis, had pleaded guilty to possessing a sawn-off shotgun at Knocklyon Shopping Centre in July 2012 and to possessing a sledgehammer, a bottle containing petrol and socks for use in connection with that offence. He had a previous conviction under section 27B of the Firearms Act for carrying a firearm with criminal intent. The judgment records that a five-year sentence for the 2012 firearms offence was imposed in May 2014 but suspended in full; a separate three-year sentence for the related offence was also suspended.
The challenge arose after the Director of Public Prosecutions gave notice of an intended appeal against the sentence on grounds of undue leniency. Ellis argued that, following the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of a related provision in DPP v Prenderville, the five-year minimum under section 27A(8) had to be served and could not be suspended. He contended that removing a sentencing judge’s discretion, including to account for rehabilitation, impermissibly interfered with the administration of justice.
The High Court distinguished the rule for qualifying repeat offenders from the provision for a first offence, which can allow a lower sentence in exceptional and specific circumstances. It held that the statutory minimum for repeat offenders was not irrationally applied simply because it excluded people under 18 and applied only where there was a qualifying prior conviction. The court also noted the maximum 14-year sentences available for the relevant serious firearms offences and said the five-year minimum was proportionate in that context.
The court refused the constitutional relief. It also rejected the ECHR challenge, noting that no specific case law had been advanced on that point. The judgment decides the validity of the statutory provision; it does not determine the outcome of the DPP’s proposed sentence review.