The Supreme Court has dismissed John Gilligan’s appeal against 20-year prison sentences for possessing cannabis resin for sale or supply, deciding that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal but should not intervene in the sentences.
In a judgment delivered on 10 July 2006, Denham J. said the Court of Criminal Appeal’s certificate permitting an appeal concerned conviction, but the Supreme Court could also consider sentence because the earlier appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal had covered both conviction and sentence. The Court had already dismissed the appeal against conviction in a separate judgment delivered on 23 November 2005.
The Special Criminal Court convicted Gilligan in 2001 on six possession counts and five unlawful importation counts. It imposed concurrent 28-year terms for possession and concurrent 12-year terms for importation. In 2003, the Court of Criminal Appeal reduced the possession sentences to 20 years and left the importation sentences unchanged.
The Supreme Court’s 2005 judgment restored the trial court’s finding that Gilligan was the leader of the gang. The Court of Criminal Appeal had treated the finding that he was not the leader as one reason to reduce the possession sentences. The Supreme Court said that reason no longer applied, while the separate concern that the trial court had not confined itself to the individual charges proved remained a significant basis for the reduction.
The appeal before the Supreme Court concerned the possession sentences, not the importation terms. Gilligan’s counsel argued that the 20-year sentences were disproportionate, that insufficient weight had been given to the fact the drug was cannabis resin, and that the sentences should be more in line with those for importation.
Denham J. said possession for sale or supply carried a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, following a 1984 legislative change. The judgment identified aggravating circumstances including Gilligan’s role as prime mover, the commercial scale of the operation, significant profits, previous convictions and lack of remorse. It also noted that he was not dealing to support a drug habit.
The Court rejected the arguments that cannabis resin should have received less weight and that parity was required between possession and importation sentences. It said the legislature had set different maximum penalties for the two offences. While describing the 20-year term as being at the high end of the appropriate range, the Court concluded it was not so high as to amount to an error in principle and dismissed the appeal.