DPP v Keith Quinn
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Ms. Justice Kennedy |
| Judgment Date | 10 December 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] IECA 350 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Ireland) |
| Docket Number | Record Number 91 CJA/21 |
In the Matter of Section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993
[2021] IECA 350
The President
McCarthy J.
Kennedy J.
Record Number 91 CJA/21
THE COURT OF APPEAL
Sentencing – Possession of drugs with an intention to supply – Undue leniency – Applicant seeking review of sentence – Whether sentence was unduly lenient
Facts: The applicant, the Director of Public Prosecutions, applied to the Court of Appeal pursuant to s. 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993, seeking to review on grounds of undue leniency a sentence imposed on the respondent, Mr Quinn, on the 14th April 2021. The respondent pleaded guilty to an offence contrary to s. 15A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 (as amended) being the possession of drugs with a value of €13,000 or more, with an intention to supply. A seven and a half year sentence was imposed, with the final three and a half years of that sentence suspended on terms. The Director contended that the judge erred in not having due regard to the nature of the charges and the circumstances attending the commission of the offences. It was alleged that the sentence did not adequately reflect the value, weight and nature of the controlled substance, and that the sentencing judge erred in principle in departing from the presumptive minimum sentence. It was alleged that she did not give sufficient weight to the aggravating factors, and gave undue weight to the mitigating factors. It was also said that she erred in allowing a total discount of – in reality – eight and a half years from the headline sentence of twelve and a half years.
Held by the Court that it did not take issue with the headline sentence, nor did it quibble to any great degree with the reduction afforded for mitigation. The Court considered the material furnished to it which showed that the respondent was doing well whilst in custody and had employment prospects. The Court also considered the material furnished to the court below. The Court believed the appropriate reduction for mitigation should have been to reduce the sentence to one of eight years. The Court was persuaded that the judge erred in suspending three and a half years of the seven and a half year sentence, but it believed it was appropriate to suspend some of the eight-year sentence, to enable him to address his gambling addiction. The Court held that it would suspend eighteen months of the eight-year sentence.
The Court quashed the sentence imposed in the court below and substituted for that sentence one of eight years’ imprisonment, with the final eighteen months suspended on the same terms and conditions as imposed in the Circuit Court.
Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT of the Court ( ex tempore) delivered on the 10 th day of December 2021 by Ms. Justice Kennedy
. This is an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions pursuant to s. 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993, seeking to review on grounds of undue leniency a sentence imposed on the respondent on the 14 th April 2021. The respondent pleaded guilty to an offence contrary to s. 15A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 (as amended) being the possession of drugs with a value of €13,000 or more, with an intention to supply. A seven and a half year sentence was imposed, with the final three and a half years of that sentence suspended on terms.
. On the 1 st August 2020, authorities in the UK became suspicious of a package which transited through the UK to Ireland from the Netherlands. The package was found to contain twenty wrapped rolls of material which transpired on analysis to be diamorphine. The Gardaí were contacted, and an operation was put in place to continue with the delivery. The label on the package bore the respondent's first name, and it was delivered to a logistics and distribution warehouse in Dublin where the respondent worked. The package was received by the respondent, who took a photograph of it and sent it to his co-accused. The respondent put the package in his personal vehicle, following which the co-accused arrived in a vehicle, and both drove to another premises nearby. The respondent brought the package inside and emerged empty-handed.
. The respondent and the other individual drove away and were arrested and detained. The contents of package were analysed, and approximately 19.8 kg of diamorphine was found, with a street value of €2,769,130. The respondent was arrested and detained. During interview, he provided his personal circumstances, his phone number, agreed he had received the package, identified the facility where he worked, and provided the access codes to his phone. It was accepted that the latter greatly assisted the Gardaí. He also indicated on interview that he had a gambling addiction.
. It was accepted that the respondent had a gambling problem, and that he was not significantly enriched by his actions in relation to the package. It was also accepted that he was acting as a conduit. The prosecuting Garda agreed that he was reluctant to discuss other individuals, but that the provision of his phone assisted the Gardaí. His brother testified as to the difficulties suffered by the respondent, and as to his previous good character.
. The respondent is 33 years old and has no relevant previous convictions. The sentencing judge considered he was a person of previously good character, with a good work history, coming from a good family. His brother gave evidence of the devastating impact on him of the deaths of his parents when he was a young man, which was also outlined in a psychological report. The respondent went down a road of gambling, and his involvement in the criminal activity appears to have been as a result of this addiction.
. The sentencing judge began by noting the seriousness of an offence contrary to s. 15A of the 1977 Act. She considered the value and the nature of the substance to be significant aggravating factors in this case, placing the offence in the upper range of offences of this nature. The sentencing judge then considered the role of the accused, in that he was a “cog in the distribution” of the drugs, and while it was accepted that although he was not benefiting greatly financially, he was considered to be an important part of the distribution. The sentencing judge considered that the acts of the respondent also involved a breach of the trust of his employer, and while he wasn't specifically aware of what was in the package, the circumstances were sufficient to give rise to suspicion, as his involvement appears to have arisen in the context of pressures as to debts he owed as a result of his gambling addiction.
. The judge considered his motivation leading to his involvement in the offence related to his gambling addiction and some element of duress as a result, without which she would have imposed a higher sentence. She considered a headline sentence of twelve and a half years appropriate.
. By way of mitigation, she considered the accused's guilty plea and his expressions of remorse and shame, as well as his personal circumstances, his gambling addiction, his psychological pressures, the absence of previous...
To continue reading
Request your trial