The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by Jenna Heaphy against the severity of sentences for two heroin possession offences, but varied the condition attached to the suspended part of her sentence to make it easier for her to access drug treatment.
The court upheld a five-year prison sentence for the first offence and a concurrent eight-year sentence for the second, with the final two years suspended. It rejected her arguments that the sentencing judge had wrongly described her as a serious drug dealer, failed to account for her treatment efforts and guilty pleas, or imposed a disproportionate sentence compared with her co-accused.
The offences took place in Cork in May and September 2010. In the first, Heaphy produced 74.6 grams of heroin after being taken to a garda station. The judgment said she admitted arranging travel to England to bring drugs back to pay a drug debt. The heroin was valued at €11,190.
In the second case, 111 grams of heroin, valued at €16,693, were found in her car. Garda evidence was that messages on her phone showed her arranging the collection of the drugs in Dublin, negotiating a price and planning their distribution in Cork. Heaphy initially gave an account that, the gardaí said, played down her role, but later told the sentencing court she accepted full responsibility.
Her co-accused, described in the judgment as her partner, received a six-year sentence that was suspended in full for three years. The Court of Appeal said he had a very limited role and was not the main instigator. It found that Heaphy had organised the second offence and that the difference in their roles justified different sentences. The co-accused’s lenient sentence did not make hers unjust or wrong in principle.
The court noted that the sentencing judge had applied the statutory provision allowing a sentence below the ten-year minimum for the second offence, despite expressing uncertainty about whether the circumstances justified doing so. The prosecution had not appealed that decision; the Court of Appeal said Heaphy might be considered fortunate to have received that benefit.
The sentencing judge had made the final two years conditional on Heaphy obtaining a place at Coolmine Centre. On appeal, both sides accepted that the condition could limit access to treatment if a place was unavailable or she was ineligible. The Court of Appeal therefore varied the condition so the suspended period would include compliance with all Probation Service recommendations concerning drug treatment. The precise wording of the order was to be discussed with counsel.