The Court of Appeal has allowed Michael Crinnion’s appeal against the sentences imposed for three drug supply offences, finding that consecutive sentences were an error of principle. It imposed concurrent four-year terms on all three counts and suspended the final year of each, subject to the conditions attached to the original suspended sentence.
The appeal concerned sentences imposed by Cork Circuit Criminal Court after Crinnion pleaded guilty. The drug offences involved sales of heroin to an undercover Garda in Cork on 25 February, 10 March and 11 May 2015, for €30, €30 and €50 respectively. The original sentence was four years for the first two counts, with a further two-year term for the third count suspended in full.
The Court of Appeal said the three incidents were close together in time and involved the same type of offending: relatively low-level drug dealing for Crinnion’s direct personal benefit. It found there was not enough to distinguish the incidents to justify consecutive sentences. The court said the repeated sales did not justify consecutive terms where commercial dealing was an element of each charge and the sales were close in time.
The court quashed the original drug sentence and resentenced Crinnion to concurrent four-year terms, suspending the final year of each. It said the suspension reflected mitigating factors and was intended to encourage him to continue progress made after a methadone detoxification programme in custody. The suspension conditions were the same as those previously attached to the suspended sentence on the third count.
The court did not find error in the other grounds raised about the drug sentence. It also dismissed Crinnion’s appeal against a separate three-year sentence for assault causing harm to Garda Joseph Halpin. That sentence, imposed consecutively to the original drug sentence, had its final year suspended by the sentencing judge.
The Court of Appeal left the assault sentence unchanged and directed that it be served consecutively to the new drug sentences. It concluded that the overall sentence did not offend the totality principle. The assault appeal was dismissed; the drug appeal was allowed.