The Court of Criminal Appeal has ruled that the quantity and value of drugs seized are critical factors in assessing the seriousness of an offence, after finding that a Circuit Court judge failed to give proper weight to a €111,370 cocaine haul. The appeal court did not set a replacement sentence at this hearing; it ordered the case to be relisted for further submissions on sentence.
The judgment, delivered on 31 October 2008 by Kearns J., concerned a review application by the Director of Public Prosecutions under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993. Derek Long had pleaded guilty to possessing 1,591 grams of cocaine, found at his family home in Blackrock, County Dublin, on 10 September 2006. Dublin Circuit Court imposed a two-year prison sentence, below the statutory minimum, citing his guilty plea, assistance, personal circumstances, age and psychological condition.
The DPP argued that the sentencing judge had failed to account for the substantial value of the drugs and had given excessive weight to Long’s personal circumstances and the way he had met the case. In the Circuit Court, counsel for Long had compared the case with DPP v David Spratt, involving drugs valued at about €35,000. When told of that value, the sentencing judge said it was “not a material factor”.
The appeal court rejected that approach. It said the value and quantity of drugs are critical to evaluating the overall seriousness of an offence under section 15(A) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977. It also said drug type may have limited significance where a drug is shown to be more harmful than another. The court stressed that value is not determinative in every case: each case turns on its facts, including whether the person possessing the drugs knew or could have known their quantity or value.
The court also found that Long’s age, immaturity and psychological vulnerability had been given excessive importance. It said the psychological report did not conclude that he was incapable of judging what amounted to criminal behaviour. The appeal court considered the value of the haul a critical difference from Spratt and said it placed the offence on a completely different level of seriousness.
The court concluded that the errors had led to a substantial departure from the appropriate sentence. It expressed concern about the brevity of the Circuit Court’s reasons and said sentencing judges should deliver reasoned judgments in cases of this kind. Long’s counsel was allowed to make further submissions or provide other documentation when the appeal court frames the appropriate sentence. The case was to be relisted for that purpose; the judgment did not state a revised sentence.