Judgment: 2020-05-29 · Court archive

Court of Appeal dismisses Patrick Ring’s appeal over heroin sentence

The court found no error in the three-year sentence, with the final 18 months suspended, imposed for possession of heroin for sale or supply in Cork.

Court of Appeal ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Patrick Ring (Appellant)
What

The court found no error in the three-year sentence, with the final 18 months suspended, imposed for possession of heroin for sale or supply in Cork.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Grand Parade
  • Cork
When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 27 November 2019

    Cork Circuit Criminal Court imposed the sentence on 27 November 2019. It had set a headline sentence of four years, reduced to three years in light of Ring’s guilty plea and mitigating circumstances, and suspended the final 18 months. The sentencing judge referred to Ring’s commitment to addressing his drug addiction and rehabilitation.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

On appeal, Ring argued that the sentence was unduly severe and that the sentencing judge’s remarks at an earlier hearing had created an expectation of a concurrent sentence. The Court of Appeal rejected that argument. It said the judge had not promised a particular outcome or limited his sentencing discretion, and noted that he had warned a consecutive sentence was under consideration.

The Court of Appeal has dismissed Patrick Ring’s appeal against a three-year prison sentence, the final 18 months of which were suspended, for possessing heroin for sale or supply in Cork.

The offence was committed on 20 December 2017 at Grand Parade. Ring was found with small foil packages of heroin valued at €575 and €65 in cash. He pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity.

Cork Circuit Criminal Court imposed the sentence on 27 November 2019. It had set a headline sentence of four years, reduced to three years in light of Ring’s guilty plea and mitigating circumstances, and suspended the final 18 months. The sentencing judge referred to Ring’s commitment to addressing his drug addiction and rehabilitation.

Ring, who was 48 at the time of sentencing, had 91 previous convictions, including six under the Misuse of Drugs Acts. Five of those were for possession for sale or supply. He was then serving a five-year sentence for a similar offence, with the final two years suspended; a separate six-month sentence for another similar offence was to run concurrently with it.

Reports before the sentencing court described Ring’s engagement with prison drug treatment services and his willingness to undertake residential treatment after release. The probation officer also reported prison sanctions for being “under the influence” and retrieving contraband, which the officer said called into question Ring’s commitment to remaining drug free. The judgment says the report did not specify what he was under the influence of.

On appeal, Ring argued that the sentence was unduly severe and that the sentencing judge’s remarks at an earlier hearing had created an expectation of a concurrent sentence. The Court of Appeal rejected that argument. It said the judge had not promised a particular outcome or limited his sentencing discretion, and noted that he had warned a consecutive sentence was under consideration.

The appeal court said it could find no error by the sentencing judge and considered the sentence to be within his discretion. It dismissed the appeal.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review