The Court of Criminal Appeal ruled that seven-year sentences imposed on Keith Jervis and Therese Doyle for possessing cannabis for supply were unduly lenient because the trial judge suspended them without imposing supervision conditions. It left the sentences wholly suspended and adjourned the question of conditions, saying it would hear evidence and submissions about the respondents’ conduct since the original sentences.
The Director of Public Prosecutions had applied under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 to review the sentences imposed in the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court. The appeal focused on the decision to suspend the full seven years; the Director did not challenge the sentence length itself.
The offence concerned about 45 kilograms of cannabis, with an estimated market value between €320,000 and €550,000. The drugs were found in an attic space at the respondents’ home in Lucan, County Dublin, after gardaí searched the house under warrant in March 2010. Both respondents pleaded guilty in March 2011. The sentencing judge imposed seven years’ imprisonment on each, suspended in full on a €50 bond to keep the peace.
The appeal court accepted that the respondents’ immediate cooperation in showing gardaí where the concealed drugs were kept could count as material assistance. It also said family life and the welfare of children can, depending on the case, amount to exceptional circumstances capable of justifying a wholly suspended sentence. The court did not find that the seven-year terms were unduly lenient merely because they were suspended in full.
But it said the trial judge had given no reasons for concluding that the family circumstances justified complete suspension and had not addressed the implications for the children or whether one parent could remain at home if the other were imprisoned. The court also found serious error in the judge’s failure to give proper consideration to probation reports recommending supervision. Both reports assessed the respondents as being at moderate risk of reoffending.
The appeal court concluded that the sentences were unduly lenient because no conditions were attached to the suspensions. It will hear the parties on appropriate supervision conditions and consider evidence and submissions about the respondents’ conduct since sentence. The judgment did not itself impose those conditions.