The Court of Appeal has set aside a four-year prison sentence suspended in full for Warren Bowen, after finding the sentence unduly lenient. It has not yet imposed a replacement sentence: Bowen was absent from the appeal hearing, and the court said he would have an opportunity to provide further material before it sentences him afresh.
Bowen had pleaded guilty to possessing cannabis for sale or supply, contrary to section 15A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977. The prosecution appealed the sentence under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993.
The sentence followed a Garda investigation in October 2011. Evidence at the sentencing hearing was that Bowen delivered timber to a house in Cappacasheen, Kinvara, where cannabis resin was concealed inside it. A search of that house found seven kilograms of cannabis resin, valued at €42,596. A search of Bowen’s home found more than six kilograms of cannabis, valued at €37,100, concealed in timber and elsewhere. The Garda evidence described the concealment as a professional operation.
The sentencing judge set a headline sentence of seven years, then reduced it to four years after considering mitigation and suspended the entire term. The judge cited Bowen’s early guilty plea and lack of previous convictions, among other matters. Reports before the sentencing court described him as remorseful, at low risk of reoffending and positively engaged with probation supervision during a year-long adjournment.
The Court of Appeal said the seven-year headline sentence was at the lowest end of the permissible range, but not outside it. It accepted that the mitigation justified a generous reduction. However, the court concluded that Bowen’s circumstances did not amount to the substantial special reasons and particularly exceptional circumstances needed to justify suspending the whole sentence. His progress with probation could support a partial suspension, the court said, but did not justify suspending all four years.
The court allowed the prosecution appeal and set aside the original sentence. Its decision was limited to that step: it directed that Bowen be given an opportunity to submit further material, if he wished, before the court determines the replacement sentence.