DPP v David Breen

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: McCracken J.
• Judgment Date: 21 February 2005
• Neutral Citation: [2005] IECCA 55
• Docket Number: 151 CJA/04
• Court: Court of Criminal Appeal
• Date: 21 February 2005

[2005] IECCA 55

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

McCracken J

Murphy J

Abbot J

151 CJA/04

DPP v BREEN

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 2 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1993

The People at the Suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions

V

David Breen

Respondents

MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT 1977 S15A

MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT 1977 S3

MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT 1977 S23

MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT 1977 S27(3G)

DPP v DUNNE 2003 4 IR 87

DPP v FINN 2001 2 IR 25 2001 2 ILRM 211 2000/7/2533

1 Judgment of the Court (Ex Tempore) delivered on the 21st day of February 2005 by McCracken J.

McCracken J.

2 This is an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions to review the sentence on the grounds of undue leniency. The accused pleaded guilty at Waterford Circuit Court on 16^th June 2004 to four counts; one count of possession of ecstasy for the purpose of supply under s.15(A) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 as amended, one count of possession of cannabis resin under s.3 for his own use and two counts of obstructing a police officer.

3 The accused was apprehended when a car driven by his father in which he was a passenger was stopped by the gardaí in Dungarvan, who then searched the car under s.23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. Under the passenger seat in the car they found two packets of ecstasy tablets and a small amount of cannabis resin was also found in the accused's pocket. The accused then became violent when he was arrested and the garda who arrested him had to summon assistance. The accused again became violent in the garda station and these are the two obstruction charges.

4 The accused is a chronic drug addict of 25 years of age and he had twenty-eight previous convictions, although only two of these were for possession of drugs for supply. At the time of his trial he was serving a nine month sentence.

5 It would appear that he has an unfortunate background and in fact had been brought up in a home from 12 years of age. He certainly pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and he pleaded guilty to the obstruction offences as well. The trial Judge seems to have accepted, and I think probably rightly, that he was not a major supplier. The approach which she took was that she would halve the mandatory ten year sentence in view of his guilty plea, although she does not seem to have considered the fact...