Judgment: 2017-02-10 · Court archive

Appeal court suspends an additional year of sentence in cannabis case

The Court of Appeal changed the sentence for a man convicted of a drugs offence, citing a sentencing error about his record and limited additional credit for his previous good character.

The Court of Appeal · 306/15

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Dariusz Lelakowski (Appellant)
What

The Court of Appeal changed the sentence for a man convicted of a drugs offence, citing a sentencing error about his record and limited additional credit for his previous good character.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Crossmorris
  • Kildare Town
  • Naas
When

Judgment:

Why

Read the report below for the decision and any reasons given.

The Court of Appeal has changed the sentence imposed on Dariusz Lelakowski for a cannabis offence, suspending an additional year of his eight-year prison term.

In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 10 February 2017, the court set aside the original sentence of eight years with two years suspended. It imposed eight years’ imprisonment with the final three years suspended, on condition that Mr Lelakowski enter a €100 bond to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for three years after his release.

The appeal concerned the severity of a sentence imposed by the Circuit Criminal Court in Naas on 2 December 2015 for an offence under section 15A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977. The offence occurred on 2 June 2014.

The judgment said gardaí searched a cottage at Crossmorris, outside Kildare Town, which Mr Lelakowski was renting and living in with his wife and son. In a shed outside, they found 52 boxes of cannabis resin weighing 38kg, with an approximate street value of €700,000. The judgment records that he cooperated, handed over his mobile phone and told gardaí what he knew. He said he was due €2,000 for storing the cannabis.

The court considered arguments that the sentencing judge gave too much weight to aggravating factors and too little credit to cooperation and personal circumstances, including his wife’s ill health. The Director of Public Prosecutions opposed the appeal but accepted there was significant mitigation.

The appeal judges were concerned that the sentencing judge appeared to mistake a speeding conviction for theft. Although the judge later corrected the error, it did not affect the sentence. The Court of Appeal said a speeding conviction would generally be disregarded and that an accused person would be treated as having no previous convictions, a positive factor in sentencing.

The court said Mr Lelakowski was entitled to have his crime-free past acknowledged, but only in a limited way. It made no other change to the stated eight-year term, and the additional suspension was subject to the bond and post-release conditions.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review