The Court of Appeal has refused Mark Dewey’s application for more time to appeal the severity of a seven-year prison sentence for a drug offence.
In a judgment delivered on 5 February 2019, the court said Dewey had not provided enough detail about the offence or the sentencing hearing to show that the interests of justice required an extension. The court considered the application to extend the appeal deadline; it did not hear or decide the proposed sentence appeal itself.
Dewey had pleaded guilty before Cork Circuit Court to an offence under section 15A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977. He was sentenced on 23 November 2017 to seven years’ imprisonment, with the final two years suspended. The court said the offence concerned possession of drugs for sale or supply valued at more than €13,000. It recorded that the drugs included cocaine, cannabis herb and MDMA, and described the aggregate value as the prosecution’s case.
The offence carries a potential life sentence and a presumptive minimum of 10 years, from which a sentencing judge may depart in specified exceptional circumstances. The appeal court said, without a transcript, it presumed the Circuit Court judge had been satisfied that such circumstances applied. It made no finding about what those circumstances were.
Dewey missed the 28-day appeal deadline. The court treated 13 February 2018—the date he completed an application to extend time—as the relevant date, noting that a later filing delay was caused by someone else and was not his fault. It said the delay was relatively short and that, if timing were the only issue, it might have been prepared to extend time.
The court’s concern was that the affidavit and submissions did not engage with key facts, including Dewey’s role in the drug operation, the quantity of drugs, his previous convictions, or the circumstances of the sentencing hearing. The application also referred generally to “a number of medical issues” without identifying them or explaining what evidence had been presented and allegedly overlooked. A solicitors’ letter said a psychologist’s report had been sought but refused by the sentencing judge; the court noted that this was not addressed in the affidavit.
The judges said an applicant did not have to prove that a sentence appeal would succeed, but needed to present a reasonably cogent basis tied to what had actually occurred at sentencing. They concluded that the information provided did not establish that an extension was required in the interests of justice and refused the application.