The Court of Appeal has refused the Director of Public Prosecutions’ application to review as unduly lenient a five-year sentence imposed on a man who pleaded guilty to possessing cannabis worth about €632,000 for supply.
The man was convicted at Ennis Circuit Criminal Court on 3 November 2015. On 7 April 2016, he was sentenced to five years in prison, with the final three years suspended for four years after his release, subject to conditions. The DPP brought the review under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993.
The offence arose from a search on 19 December 2014 at the man’s parents’ home in Querrin, Kilkee, County Clare. Gardaí found six sacks of cannabis in a Volkswagen Golf parked behind the property. The man came to the address after gardaí contacted him and immediately admitted responsibility. He said he had been asked to store the drugs for €2,000. They had first been delivered to his home in Cree, County Clare, then moved about 20 miles to his parents’ property. Gardaí accepted that he had acted as a warehouse man.
The sentencing judge identified the quantity and the man’s knowledge that the drugs were intended for supply as aggravating factors. He also noted the man’s cooperation, remorse, guilty plea and lack of previous convictions, apart from minor road traffic matters. The judge concluded that exceptional circumstances made the statutory minimum of ten years unjust.
The DPP did not challenge the decision to impose less than ten years. The appeal instead argued that the five-year term did not reflect the offence’s gravity, including the value of the drugs and efforts to conceal them. It also criticised the sentencing judge for not expressly identifying a starting or “headline” sentence before allowing for mitigation.
The Court of Appeal said the sentencing judge appeared to have treated five years as the headline sentence. It held that five years was reasonable in the circumstances. The court said the decision to suspend three years was especially lenient and that a sentence with 18 months or two years suspended might have been more appropriate. However, it concluded the judge had acted within the limits of his discretion, although at its outer limits. The court therefore found the sentence was not unduly lenient and refused the DPP’s application.