Little leniency for drug-dealers on appeal

In dealing yesterday with several appeals by drug offenders against the severity of their sentences, the Court of Criminal Appeal (CCA) signalled that drug-dealers could expect little leniency from the courts.

The fact that such people were supplying drugs for profit was the central issue for consideration by the court, not the amount of drugs involved, Mr Justice Murray, sitting with Mr Justice Lavan and Mr Justice O'Higgins, remarked.

The discretion of trial judges when dealing with drug offenders - and of the CCA when dealing with appeals by those offenders against the severity of their sentences - follows tough new anti-drugs legislation and a recent Supreme Court decision that sentences may not be interfered with unless it can be shown that the trial judge erred in principle.

The CCA yesterday dealt with four appeals by people convicted under the Misuse of Drugs Act - which imposes a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence for persons convicted of having more than 10 kilos of controlled drugs for supply, unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying a lesser sentence. A fifth appeal was withdrawn. Of those heard, two were dismissed and two were granted.

The appellants included Patrick Cronin (25), a disc jockey, College Road, Castleisland, Co Kerry, who is serving eight years for having £48,000 (€61,000) of cannabis resin, a £1 trace of Ecstasy and a quantity of amphetamines, for supply.

Mr Brendan Nix SC, for Cronin, had argued that the trial judge, in imposing sentence, had erred in principle in that he failed to take into account Cronin's previous virtually unblemished record. Cronin had convictions for relatively minor public order offences, for which he had received a community service order but had never spent time in prison. He argued Cronin had been harshly dealt with compared with a number of persons who received lesser sentences although they had larger quantities of drugs.

Dismissing the appeal, Mr Justice Murray said the amount of drugs involved was a factor of marginal consideration. In this case, the amount involved was some £48,000 and one had to be in a good way of business to deal with drugs of that value, he remarked.

However, the CCA was not engaged in comparing values of drugs. The essence of the offence was dealing in drugs and supplying them to make money.

The fundamental point was whether the eight-year sentence demonstrated any error in principle. While it may have been at the higher end of the scale, it was imposed for a person engaged in drug dealing in a substantial way. The court was satisfied there was no error in principle.

The court also dismissed an appeal by John Mulligan (20), of Hawley Park, Tralee, against a three-year sentence for having 99 Ecstasy tablets and £240 (€305) of amphetamines. The court heard that Mulligan was a drug addict and had received a previous five-year suspended sentence for having £2,500 (€3,174) of cannabis resin. The court held that the sentence imposed demonstrated no error in principle.

The court allowed an appeal by Barry O'Mahony, Fivemilebridge, Ballinhassig, Co Cork, against a 12-year sentence imposed for having £150,000 (€190,000) worth of cannabis resin on September 5th, 2000. O'Mahony was described by gardaí as a courier and storeman for a Cork drugs gang. In reducing the sentence to 10 years, the CCA held the trial judge erred in placing too much emphasis on opinion evidence that O'Mahony had been involved in the drugs business.

The court also reduced a six-year sentence imposed on Rejoice Phumelele Ncube, a 43-year-old South African woman who was arrested at Dublin Airport with £50,000 (€63,000) worth of cannabis resin in May 2001. It stressed that this was a serious offence that would normally require a significant custodial element, and a six-year - or higher - sentence was not wrong in principle.

However, Mr Justice Murray added, the court believed the trial judge gave insufficient weight, in this case, to all the factors, including that Ncube co-operated with gardaí, pleaded guilty at an early stage, was a widow who was responsible for five children, and was open to exploitation because of her difficult personal circumstances. It held that the appropriate sentence was six years, with the last two years suspended.