The Court of Appeal has dismissed Wayne Ellis’s challenge to the constitutionality of a five-year minimum prison term for certain repeat firearms offences. The ruling leaves in place the High Court’s rejection of his challenge to the statutory provision.
Ellis had been charged over events at Knocklyon Shopping Centre on 5 July 2012. The charges were possession of a sawn-off shotgun and possession of a sledgehammer, a plastic bottle containing petrol and socks, allegedly intended for use in connection with an offence.
At a 2013 sentencing hearing, the court was told Ellis had 26 previous convictions, including two for carrying a firearm with criminal intent. In May 2014, the Dublin Circuit Court imposed a five-year sentence for the firearms offence, suspended in full for five years, and a concurrent three-year sentence for the other offence, also suspended. The Director of Public Prosecutions sought a review on grounds of undue leniency.
After the Court of Appeal’s 2015 decision in DPP v Prenderville, which interpreted the legislation as requiring the minimum five years to be served, the court allowed the review in July 2016 and imposed a five-year prison term for the firearms offence.
Ellis then challenged the law, arguing that it improperly restricted sentencing discretion and produced a disproportionate sentence. The Court of Appeal said the provision applied because of his relevant previous convictions. It distinguished the rules for first offences, where a court may impose less than five years if exceptional and specific circumstances make the minimum unjust, from the rule for qualifying second or subsequent offences, which requires a minimum five-year term to be served. The court noted that judges retain discretion to impose a sentence between five and 14 years.
Giving judgment on 31 July 2017, Mr Justice Birmingham said the legislature could set sentencing parameters and that the firearms sentencing regime was not irrational or disproportionate. The court agreed with the High Court and dismissed the appeal. The decision resolved the constitutional challenge; the judgment does not revisit the earlier sentence review.