Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Sentences imposed for cultivation of cannabis were not unduly lenient
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal: 1) dismisses appeal of Director of Public Prosecutions of various sentences imposed on three Vietnamese nationals for drug offences arising from cannabis cultivation in a grow house in Meath, on the grounds that whilst they were lenient, they were not unduly so; and 2) dismisses cross-appeal of a Mr. Vu against the severity of a six-year sentence with the final three years thereof suspended, on the grounds that while the sentencing judge may have erred in principle in not treating Mr. Vu and Mr. Cong Le as meriting the same headline sentences, the resulting sentence was not too severe.
Criminal law – sentencing – appeal of various sentences imposed for drug offences on the grounds they were unduly lenient – s. 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 – cannabis grow house – cultivation (of plants of the genus cannabis) contrary to s. 17 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 as substituted by s. 11 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1984 – possession of a controlled drug for the purpose of selling or otherwise supplying it to another, contrary to s. 15 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 – no starting points were indicated by the learned sentencing judge – roles of the respondents and the commercial nature of the operation – sentences were within the sentencing judge’s margin of reasonable appreciation in circumstances where it was the product of the application of the totality principle – sentences in the case of Mr. Tu and Mr. Cong Le were certainly very lenient, but we are not satisfied that they were unduly lenient – Mr. Vu’s cross-appeal contending that his sentence was too severe is without merit – appeals dismissed.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
