The Court of Appeal has quashed a sentence imposed on a man who pleaded guilty to a drug offence involving nearly 30kg of cannabis, and imposed a fresh seven-year sentence with the final three years suspended.
The judgment, delivered on 15 July 2019, concerned a DPP application under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 to review a sentence as unduly lenient. The respondent had been sentenced at Trim Circuit Court on 29 November 2018 to three years in prison, with the final 12 months suspended. He had pleaded guilty on 1 May 2018 to an offence under section 15A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977, as amended.
The Court of Appeal said the DPP did not dispute that the sentencing judge could depart from the presumptive 10-year minimum if imposing that term would be unjust in the circumstances. The appeal focused on the judge’s assessment of the offence’s gravity and the five-year headline sentence set before mitigation.
The court found that the sentencing judge had to give significant regard to the 10-year minimum when fixing the headline sentence. It also found that the value of the cannabis, estimated at €598,000, was more than 40 times the statutory threshold of €13,000, and had been given insufficient weight. The court concluded that the offence could not properly be placed at the lower end of the mid-range of offences. It also found that the judge had given undue weight to cannabis being less harmful than drugs such as cocaine or heroin; that distinction could be considered only as a marginal factor.
The court ruled that these errors amounted to a substantial departure from appropriate sentencing practice. It quashed the Circuit Court sentence and placed the offence at the lower end of the higher range, setting a seven-year headline sentence.
In resentencing, the court considered the respondent’s guilty plea, cooperation, remorse, lack of previous convictions, probation report and conduct in custody. It also took account of his personal circumstances, including the court’s finding that he had acted under duress, was not a principal player and was not seeking to amass wealth. The court suspended the final three years of the seven-year sentence, which was to run from the date of the Circuit Court sentence.
The judgment records that the respondent had been due for release in May 2020 and had taken part in physical and educational activities and volunteered while in custody. The Court of Appeal’s order was to quash the original sentence and replace it with the sentence it imposed.