Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal dismisses appeal against severity of sentence for drugs offences, on the grounds that: (a) the sentencing judge had carried out a careful assessment and struck a correct balance between the competing considerations stemming from the significant aggravating factors and the many mitigating factors in the case; (b) the judge was entitled to have regard to the very serious similar offences committed in the neighbouring jurisdiction, and the fact that the offences in question were committed at a time when the appellant ought to have been serving a twelve-year sentence of imprisonment in England was a very significant further aggravating factor; (c) the sentencing judge was correct in identifying the offences as being at the very top of the middle range of such offences and that the value of €40,000 of the drugs was significant and a further aggravating factor; and (d) the final sentences did not represent any deviation from what might reasonably have been expected, were proportionate and were within the margin of reasonable appreciation enjoyed by a sentencing judge.
Offences: (1) possession of a controlled drug for unlawful sale or supply in contravention of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 1988 and 1993 made under s.5 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 and contrary to s.15 and s.27 (as amended) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977; (2) unlawful possession of a controlled drug contrary to s.3 and s.27 (as amended) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977; and (3) cultivation of cannabis contrary to s.17 and s.27 (as amended) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977
Original sentence: for Count 1, five years and for Count 3 four years, to run concurrently, with Count 2 taken into consideration
Appeal by: defence, on following grounds:
(1) trial judge erred in principle in identifying a headline sentence of eight years and imposing a five-year custodial sentence in respect of Count 1 and same was unduly harsh and not proportionate;
(2) trial judge erred in principle in imposing a four-year custodial sentence in respect of Count 3 and same was unduly harsh and not proportionate in the circumstances;
(3) trial judge erred in determining that the offence in Count 3 was within the upper end of mid-range of the scale of gravity in respect of drug offences;
(4) trial judge erred in determining that the offence specified in Count 1 was within the middle range on the scale of gravity in respect of drug offences;
(5) trial judge erred in principle in failing to properly assess the mitigating factors;
(6) trial judge erred in failing to have adequate regard to the accused’s circumstances and the fact that he has to serve a twelve-year sentence in the UK upon the expiration of the within sentences.
Outcome: appeal 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.
The only e-mail alert service for all Irish judgments over the past 13 years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now