The Court of Appeal increased Martin Aylmer’s sentence for participating in the activities of a criminal organisation from three years and nine months, with the final year suspended, to six years, with the final 15 months suspended. The court allowed the Director of Public Prosecutions’ appeal, finding the original sentence unduly lenient.
Aylmer had pleaded guilty at an early stage to an offence under section 72 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006, as amended. The Special Criminal Court imposed the original sentence after setting a five-year headline sentence and applying a 25 per cent reduction for the guilty plea, followed by further mitigation for his background and prospects of rehabilitation.
The offence came to light during the investigation of Michael Barr’s murder at the Sunset Public House on 25 April 2016. Evidence at the sentencing hearing showed that Aylmer bought six prepaid, unregistered phones shortly before the murder and visited a lockup on three occasions the day before it. His fingerprint was found on a bottle of bleach in the lockup, where firearms and cleaning products were discovered. The Court of Appeal said the evidence established that Aylmer knew the organisation he assisted was involved in drug trafficking.
The DPP argued that the sentencing court had undervalued the gravity of the assistance, the murder’s consequences and the need for deterrence. Aylmer’s counsel argued that he should not be punished as though he had foreseen or intended the murder. At the sentencing hearing, the DPP had accepted there was insufficient evidence to charge him with murder, and no evidence that he foresaw his assistance would be used in preparation for murder or had the intent required to assist one.
The Court of Appeal held that the murder was not an ingredient of the section 72 offence and did not make Aylmer responsible for the murder. It was, however, an aggravating factor because the assistance he provided to a drug-trafficking organisation had in fact facilitated it. The court said that consequence should affect the sentence, while cautioning that its impact should not be overstated. It placed Aylmer’s acts of assistance in the middle range and said general deterrence was relevant to the headline sentence.
The court set the headline sentence at eight years. It applied the same 25 per cent reduction for the guilty plea, then allowed a slightly greater reduction for mitigation, including Aylmer’s history and family circumstances and the fact that his sentence was being increased on appeal. The final order was six years’ imprisonment, with the final 15 months suspended on the same conditions imposed by the sentencing court. The judgment does not name those conditions in its final order; it refers back to the original conditions.