The Court of Appeal has increased the sentence imposed on Ryan Callaghan for a heroin and cocaine offence, after finding that the original sentence was significantly unduly lenient. It quashed the Circuit Criminal Court sentence for the drugs offence and substituted six years’ imprisonment, with the final year suspended, backdated to the same day as the original sentence.
The Director of Public Prosecutions brought the appeal under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993, seeking a review for undue leniency. The original sentence was three and a half years, with the final 12 months suspended. It was ordered to run concurrently with an earlier sentence. The Court of Appeal did not describe the appeal as a review of that earlier conviction; it said the concurrent terms meant the effective sentence was six months’ imprisonment.
The case arose from a Garda surveillance operation at racing stables in Drumree, County Meath, on 14 March 2017. Callaghan had pleaded guilty and was sentenced on the full facts. The court said he was photographed hiding a box later found to contain heroin valued at about €30,000, cocaine valued at about €35,000 and €44,230 in cash. An 8mm submachine gun and an empty magazine were found in adjoining premises. The gun was in a sock bearing Callaghan’s DNA. The firearms matter was taken into consideration at sentencing.
The Director argued that the five-year headline sentence set by the Circuit Court judge was too low, and that the reduction and concurrent order further reduced the punishment. The Director also challenged the judge’s statement that he was “at large” after deciding there was a basis to depart from the presumptive minimum sentence.
The Court of Appeal described the offending as very serious, citing the quantities and value of the two drugs and the firearm’s proximity. It said a sentence of six or seven years would not have been harsh, even allowing for some concurrent sentences. The court did not decide that the presumptive minimum had to be imposed: it said the case had not been argued on that basis. It concluded that the sentence was nevertheless unduly lenient to a significant extent and was therefore required to resentence.
In setting the new term, the court considered Callaghan’s progress in custody, including his placement in an open prison, efforts to pursue higher education and completion of numerous courses. It said it imposed less than it would have at first instance because he was already well into his sentence and would face disappointment at an extension of his time in custody.
The court left the concurrent nine-month money-laundering sentence undisturbed. It also did not interfere with the decision to take the firearms matter into consideration.