Davis v DPP

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Court of Criminal Appeal
• Judge: Denham J.
• Judgment Date: 19 February 2008
• Neutral Citation: [2008] IECCA 58
• Docket Number: [CCA. No: 167/07]
• Date: 19 February 2008

[2008] IECCA 58

THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

Denham J.

Feeney J.

McGovern J.

[CCA. No: 167/07]

Davis v DPP

Between/

Paul Davis

Applicant

and

The Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT 1977 S15A

DPP v LERNIHAN UNREP CCA 18.4.2007 2007/19/3889 2007 IECCA 21

DPP v GALLIGAN UNREP CCA 23.7.2003 2003/16/3495

DPP v DUFFY UNREP CCA 21.12.2001 2001/7/1809

DPP v MCGINTY 2007 1 IR 633 2006 IECCA 37

MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT 1977 S27

DPP v RENALD UNREP CCA 23.11.2001 2001/8/2140

CRIMINAL LAW

Sentence

Severity - Drugs - Possession - Mandatory minimum sentence - Material assistance - Plea and indication of location of drugs - Sentence of 7 years with 2 suspended affirmed (167/2007 - CCA - 19/2/2008) [2008] IECCA 58

People (DPP) v Davis

1 Ex tempore Judgment of the Court delivered the 19th February. 2008 by Denham J.

Denham J.

2 1. This is an application for leave to appeal by Paul Davis, 'the applicant', from the sentence delivered on the 21^st June, 2007 by the Dublin Circuit (Criminal) Court.

3 2. On the 21^st June, 2007 the Dublin Circuit (Criminal) Court sentenced the applicant to seven years imprisonment, with the final 2 years suspended under probation service supervision, for an offence under s.15A of the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1977, as amended. The combined value of cocaine and cannabis found in the applicant's dwelling and garden was €34,386.

4 3. It was submitted on behalf of the applicant that there could be no dispute on the question of the applicant's qualification not to be subject to a minimum 10 year sentence. But that the learned trial judge:

5 (a) erred in failing to determine that on the scale from life imprisonment to a non-custodial penalty, the offence could be placed at 7 to 10 years, having regard to the circumstances of the offence, but without taking into account the relevant mitigating factors;

6 (b) did not give allowance for a large number of mitigating factors, and gave insufficient weight on others;

7 (c) did not recognise that this Court has asserted that sentencing judges are required to consider the real possibility of a wholly or largely suspended sentence where there are sufficient mitigating factors in s.15A cases.

8 4. The mitigating factors relied on were:

9 (a) the applicant was "extremely co-operative" with the gardaí and made admissions of guilt at the scene and detailed statements subsequently;

10 (b) He was of material assistance to the gardaí in the investigation of the offence; in particular, he voluntarily brought the gardaí to the bulk of the drugs hidden in the garden;

11 (c) he entered a plea of guilty at an early state of the proceedings;

12 (d) he had never been previously convicted of any criminal offence';

13 (e) he was of a young age at the time of commission of the offence (19);

14 (f) he was a person of vulnerable character who had come from a difficult family background involving parental separation, domestic violence and excessive use of alcohol;

15 (g) he had developed a cocaine dependency and a cannabis dependency and committed the offence to feed his own cocaine habit;

16 (h) he had made significant efforts to rid himself of his cocaine and cannabis dependency;

17 (i) he did not commercially gain from holding the drugs and was not involved in the money end of any transactions involving the drugs;

(j) ……

18 (k) he removed himself from the neighbourhood in which the offence was committed;

(l) he secured employment for himself;

19 (m) he settled down into a stable relationship and his partner is pregnant with their first child;

(n) he has shown remorse for his actions;

20 (o) he did not come to the attention of the gardaí since the commission of the offence.

21 5. Reference was made to the statutory scheme and cases such asPeople (D.P.P.) v. Lernihan (Unreported, CCA, 18 April 2007); D.P.P. v. Galligan (Unreported, CCA, 23^rd July 2003); P(D.P.P.) v. Duffy, (CCA 21.12, 01, Keane C.J.); People (D.P.P.) v. McGinty (Unreported, CCA, 3^rd April 2006 Murray C.J.)

22 6. It was submitted on behalf of the D.P.P. that the sentencing judge did not make any error in principle in the sentencing of the applicant. It was submitted that this...