The Court of Appeal reduced Sarah Coll’s sentence for possession of cannabis worth approximately €28,260, after finding that the sentencing judge had erred in principle by taking account of matters relating to other crimes for which Coll had not been prosecuted.
In a judgment delivered on 28 November 2014, the court set aside the original sentencing order and replaced it with a four-year prison sentence. It suspended the final two years, subject to Coll entering a €100 bond to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for two years after her release.
Coll had pleaded guilty on 7 June 2013 to possessing the cannabis, contrary to section 15A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977, as amended, and to possessing diamorphine for her own use. The offences were committed on 24 September 2012. The sentencing judge had imposed six years’ imprisonment, with the final three years suspended for three years subject to a bond.
The appeal court said Coll was arrested at the Deadman’s Inn in Palmerstown, County Dublin, after a surveillance operation. She had a small amount of diamorphine, and a subsequent search of her home found cannabis in her bedroom. She admitted involvement with the cannabis and told gardaí she was holding it for her boyfriend; the judgment said that explanation appeared to have been accepted by gardaí.
The court noted that two co-accused had pleaded guilty to offences involving drugs worth more than €2 million. Evidence describing those offences referred to Coll accompanying one of the men during a major transaction. The more serious charges proceeded against the co-accused, not Coll.
The sentencing judge had said Coll was clearly involved in the larger drugs operation. The Court of Appeal said this appeared to mean that the judge had taken into account other-crime matters outside the facts recited by the prosecution in Coll’s case. The Director accepted there had been an error, or at least a perceived error, but argued the sentence remained appropriate given the presumptive minimum for offences of this kind.
The appeal court described Coll’s offence as very serious, but said she would have a legitimate sense of grievance if there were no reduction. It also referred to testimonials, her completion of a rehabilitation programme at Coolmine Therapeutic Community, and a report from Dochas Education Centre about her progress in prison. The court did not acquit Coll or disturb her guilty pleas; it allowed the sentence appeal by setting aside the original sentence and imposing the reduced term and suspension conditions.