The Court of Appeal has dismissed Eddie Uzell’s appeal against the severity of a five-year sentence for possessing heroin with intent to supply, upholding the decision to suspend the final two years on strict conditions.
The court delivered its judgment on 9 June 2015. Uzell had pleaded guilty to the offence and was sentenced at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court on 17 December 2013. The plea was notified to the prosecution and court just over two months before the scheduled trial.
The heroin intended for supply was valued at €1,288. Uzell immediately admitted owning the drugs but did not initially accept that they were for sale or supply. The appeal challenged the sentence on several grounds, including the sentencing judge’s rejection of Garda Flaherty’s evidence that Uzell was under pressure to pay a drug debt and was then addicted to heroin. The appeal also argued that insufficient weight had been given to his family and personal circumstances, rehabilitation efforts, and period without convictions.
The Court of Appeal said the sentencing judge had explained why he rejected the Garda’s evidence and was entitled to approach sentencing on that basis. It acknowledged Uzell’s guilty plea, his immediate admission of ownership, personal circumstances and background as factors supporting a significant suspended element. The court noted, however, that he pleaded guilty relatively late and only accepted later that his possession was to facilitate supply.
The judgment identified Uzell’s 62 previous convictions as a major sentencing factor. Three involved similar drug offending. One concerned drugs valued at €5,000 and resulted in a lengthy prison sentence about two and a half years before the present offence. The court said he had been released only a short time before offending again. It described the suspended portion as intended to discourage a return to drug dealing after release.
The court also cited the harmful consequences of drug dealing and said the sentence’s suspended element on strict conditions appropriately accounted for positive signs of rehabilitation. It concluded that both the five-year term and the decision to suspend the final two years were appropriate. Finding no error of principle in the sentence, it dismissed the appeal.