The Court of Appeal has found that a five-year sentence imposed on Vidas Petrauskas for a drug-importation offence was unduly lenient because almost all of it was suspended without exceptional circumstances to justify that outcome. The court allowed the Director of Public Prosecutions’ application to review the sentence and said it would address the replacement sentence at an appropriate time.
Petrauskas had been sentenced at Wexford Circuit Criminal Court on 8 December 2015 after pleading guilty to an offence under section 15(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977, as amended. The sentence was five years’ imprisonment, with all but about five and a half months in custody suspended on the condition that he leave Ireland and not return for at least 20 years.
The case arose after customs officials stopped a Lithuanian-registered van at Rosslare Harbour on 1 July 2015. A search at Rosslare Europort found cannabis herb and resin concealed beneath floor panels, with a stated value of €144,272. Petrauskas, the driver, initially denied knowledge of the contents or route during four interviews. In a fifth interview, he admitted aspects of the journey and collection of the drugs. The judgment records that he accepted suspecting something illegal and having some knowledge of what was being carried.
The sentencing judge treated Petrauskas’s cooperation as a special circumstance permitting departure from the presumptive mandatory minimum. The judge also referred to his guilty plea, work history in Lithuania, conduct in prison and rehabilitation, and suspended most of the sentence after Petrauskas undertook under oath to return to Lithuania and stay away from Ireland for 20 years.
On appeal, the Director argued that the judge had failed to identify wholly exceptional circumstances to justify suspending the sentence in that way. The respondent argued that the judge had considered the aggravating and mitigating factors and had been entitled to rely on his cooperation.
The Court of Appeal said the guilty plea and cooperation justified some departure from the presumptive minimum. But it found that the sentence was in reality almost wholly suspended, and that the sentencing court had given excessive weight to mitigation. It also said deterrence, which must be at the forefront in importation cases, had not been considered. The court concluded that an error of principle had been established and that the sentence was unduly lenient.
The judgment does not set out a replacement sentence. It says the court would consider the appropriate headline sentence and any reduction for mitigating factors at a later stage.