The Court of Appeal has ruled that five-year prison sentences imposed on John Ryan for a drugs offence and three firearms offences were unduly lenient, but deferred deciding replacement sentences until it hears further material from the parties.
In a judgment delivered on 19 January 2015, the court was reviewing concurrent sentences imposed by Limerick Circuit Criminal Court on 24 October 2013. The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that the sentences were unduly lenient. Ryan opposed the application, saying the sentencing judge had properly considered the circumstances and that the Director had not shown a clear error of principle.
The offences arose from a Garda search at an apartment complex in Limerick on 14 May 2011. Gardaí found Ryan in a van outside, with cannabis and a small quantity of cocaine. He had keys to an apartment where officers found heroin valued at €625,000 and other drugs valued at €918,000, along with drug-processing equipment, two guns, ammunition, a balaclava and gloves.
The sentencing judge had treated Ryan as a storeman and courier at the lowest level of the operation. The judge cited his guilty plea, material assistance, lack of previous convictions, remorse and gambling-related debt among the mitigating circumstances, and considered it unjust to impose the statutory minimum 10-year term for the drugs offence.
The Court of Appeal accepted that there were mitigating features, including Ryan’s plea and assistance concerning his own offence. But it said his actual activities showed a more substantial role: he obtained and paid for the apartment, stored and mixed drugs there, packed them for distribution, and distributed drugs. The court said it was a serious error to assess him as merely a mule or courier and found that the sentencing judge had seriously understated both the gravity of the case and Ryan’s role.
The court said a 10-year sentence, or a sentence above it, could arguably have been justified. It nevertheless declined to interfere with the decision to depart from the minimum term. It found the sentences unduly lenient to a significant degree and invited the parties to submit relevant material before it determines appropriate sentences. The judgment does not impose replacement sentences at this stage.