The Court of Appeal has refused a Director of Public Prosecutions application to review as unduly lenient the sentences imposed on Jake O’Sullivan for drug and road traffic offences. The court said the sentences were “very lenient” but did not meet the legal test of a substantial departure from the norm.
The application concerned sentences imposed by Cork Circuit Criminal Court on 16 May 2023. O’Sullivan received three years’ imprisonment for possessing drugs worth at least €13,000 for sale or supply. He also received a 12-month sentence for unauthorised taking of a vehicle, consecutive to the drugs sentence but suspended in full for two years on a €100 bond.
The other road traffic counts—including seven dangerous driving counts, and offences of driving without a licence and insurance—were taken into consideration. The sentencing court imposed driving disqualifications of four years on two dangerous driving counts and six years on the remaining counts.
The DPP argued that the sentencing judge had set headline sentences too low and given excessive weight to mitigation. The Court of Appeal said the DPP’s main concern was the wholly suspended sentence for the road traffic offending, which took place while O’Sullivan was on bail in the drugs case. It noted that he had seven previous convictions for unlawful taking and two previous convictions for drug possession for sale or supply. The court also observed that taking the other road traffic offences into consideration would normally lead to an uplift in the sentence for unlawful taking.
The court described the case as finely balanced. It considered evidence presented at sentencing about O’Sullivan’s guilty pleas, cooperation, drug addiction and attempts at rehabilitation, including attendance at Narcotics Anonymous and Alcoholics Anonymous. His mother described his family circumstances and efforts to support treatment. Evidence also referred to his apprenticeship and an employer’s letter indicating that work would remain available after his release.
The appeal court concluded that the sentencing judge had acted within her jurisdiction in prioritising rehabilitation in the circumstances. It found no error of principle and was not persuaded that the sentences amounted to a substantial departure from the norm. The DPP’s application was therefore refused. The existing suspended sentence remains in force; the court warned that it could be activated if O’Sullivan breaches its terms.