The Court of Appeal has dismissed a Director of Public Prosecutions application to review sentences imposed on Marcus Gantley, finding they were very lenient but not unduly lenient.
The ex tempore judgment was delivered on 4 July 2017 by Mr Justice Mahon, with Justices Edwards and Hedigan. The application concerned the overall sentence imposed at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court on 3 October 2016 for four offences. The DPP did not ask the appeal court to review each individual sentence.
The offences included resisting or obstructing a peace officer, assault, and two counts of possessing controlled drugs with intent to supply. The sentences ranged from three months to two years. The two-year sentence was ordered to run after a 12-month sentence, with its final 18 months suspended for 18 months after release, subject to conditions. The resulting immediate custodial term was 18 months.
The offences occurred between May 2014 and June 2016. In one incident, Gardaí found 5.489 grams of diamorphine, valued at about €780, after Gantley was arrested at a Spar shop in Dolphin’s Barn. In a separate incident at Dublin Airport, a search of his baggage uncovered cocaine valued at €17,248. The judgment says he was on bail for the earlier offences when the airport offence occurred.
The DPP argued that the sentencing judge had given insufficient weight to the seriousness of the offending, the fact that offences were committed on bail, and a probation assessment that Gantley posed a high risk of reoffending. The sentencing judge referred to proportionality, totality, guilty pleas, personal circumstances and a possible threat. The appeal court noted his history of drug addiction, eight previous convictions and the probation service’s high-risk assessment.
The court said the offending over a relatively short period and repeated offending on bail were disturbing. It described the overall sentence as “very lenient indeed”. However, it said an appeal court may intervene only where a sentence is unduly lenient, not merely lenient, and must give significant deference to the sentencing judge. It concluded the sentences fell short of that threshold and dismissed the application. It confirmed that the lower court’s sentences were to date from 28 July 2016.