DPP v John Power

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: GEOGHEGAN J.
• Judgment Date: 02 July 2007
• Neutral Citation: [2007] IECCA 75
• Court: Court of Criminal Appeal
• Date: 02 July 2007
• Docket Number: 38CJA/07

DPP v Power

THE PEOPLE AT THE SUIT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v.

JOHN POWER

Respondent

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

[2007] IECCA 75

38CJA/07

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1993 S2

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1999 S15(a)

DPP v RENALD UNREP MURPHY 23.11.2001 2001/8/2140

1 JUDGMENT of the Court (ex tempore) delivered on the 2nd day of July 2007 by GEOGHEGAN J.

GEOGHEGAN J.

2 The court has already indicated that it is of the view that this sentence is unduly lenient. This is a section 15A case which everyone knows is regarded by the Oireachtas, and properly regarded by the Oireachtas in terms of its statutory provisions, as an extremely serious offence. There is, subject to exceptions imposed, a mandatory sentence of 10 years. Of course, mitigating factors or any plea, co-operation or any special circumstances exempt the court, if it so thinks fit, from imposing a mandatory sentence of 10 years. But it has long been established in this court and in particular in the Rinaldi judgment, delivered by Mr. Justice Frank Murphy some years ago, that even where the court comes to the view that the mandatory sentence is not appropriate, the court must, nevertheless, take into account that the mandatory sentence exists. When considering what lesser sentence should be imposed, it must always bear that in mind. That did not happen in this case and it is clear the Circuit Court judge did not take that principle into account. The court is quite satisfied that the judge erred in principle in imposing a suspended sentence of 5 years for what was in many ways a quite serious Section 15A case having regard to the quantity and value that was involved. As against that, I will be returning to the mitigating factors which there are in the case in a few moments. But I think a good way of summarising what was involved is to repeat, first of all, the sentencing judgment of Judge Doyle. She said:

"Now, Mr. Power's case. It appears to me that this accused was a cog in the wheel of a much bigger net."

3 In that, she is absolutely correct. That was an answer that was given by the sergeant to a question by Mr. O'Kelly and, indeed, that ran through the evidence even though the value is big, he was not a big player as it were. She then said: "However, there was a huge amount of drugs involved in this case." So she had noted...