The Court of Appeal quashed the sentences imposed on Richard Farrell for drug dealing offences and substituted shorter terms, finding that the sentencing judge had set an excessive seven-year pre-mitigation sentence for each indictment.
In a judgment delivered on 12 June 2020, the court imposed 12 months’ imprisonment on each of four counts on Bill 29/2017. For the separate offence on Bill 14/2017, it imposed two and a half years, with the final six months suspended for two years on conditions. The sentences are concurrent. The court also ordered Farrell to enter a €100 bond and remain under Probation Service supervision, complying with its directions. It granted liberty to re-enter if difficulty arose regarding the bond.
The appeal concerned a four-and-a-half-year sentence, with the final 18 months suspended, imposed in October 2018 after Farrell pleaded guilty to offences under section 15 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977. The earlier indictment covered four sales of diamorphine to undercover gardaí between April and May 2016, valued at €20 to €40 each. The later indictment concerned diamorphine valued at €2,000 recovered during a search in July 2016. Farrell admitted the sales and pleaded guilty; a nolle prosequi was entered on remaining counts on both indictments.
The appeal challenged the headline sentence and the weight given to the guilty plea, rehabilitation, addiction, mitigation and Farrell’s position in the drug trade. The Court of Appeal accepted that he had been one of the main dealers in the area, but said evidence showed he dealt to feed a chronic heroin addiction, acted as a runner for people higher in the criminal chain and gained no other benefit from dealing. It treated those circumstances and the low value of the earlier sales as relevant to gravity and moral culpability.
The court held that the seven-year pre-mitigation sentence was erroneous on both indictments. It set the appropriate pre-mitigation term at 18 months for the four earlier counts and four years for the later offence. It found no separate failure to account for mitigation, observing that the sentencing judge had given a substantial reduction for it. The appeal resulted in replacement sentences; the court did not disturb the guilty pleas or the underlying convictions.