DPP v Lernihan

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeDenham J.
Judgment Date14 May 2009
Neutral Citation[2007] IECCA 21
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeal
Docket NumberRecord No: 147/CJA/06,[C.C.A. No. 147CJA/06]
Date14 May 2009
DPP v LERNIHAN
In the matter of s. 2 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1993.
Between/
The People at the Suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Prosecutor/applicant

and

Rory Lernihan
Respondent

[2007] IECCA 21

[C.C.A. No. 147CJA/06]

THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CRIMINAL LAW

Sentence

Leniency - Presumptive minimum sentence of ten years imprisonment - Undue leniency - Whether exceptional and specific circumstances in mitigation - Whether gravity of offence given sufficient consideration - Whether error for trial judge to have applied mitigating factors twice in imposition of sentence - Whether sentence unduly lenient - Court of Criminal Appeal - Jurisdiction - Whether CCA limited to submissions made by prosecutor in deciding what sentence to substitute for one quashed - People (DPP) v Byrne [1995] 1 ILRM 279 and People (DPP) v Renald (Unrep, CCA, 23/11/2001) applied - Criminal Justice Act 1951 (No 2), s 6 - Criminal Justice Act 1993 (No 6), s 2 - Sentence quashed and sentence of seven years imprisonment applied (2006/147CJA - CCA - 18/4/2007) [2007] IECCA 21

People (DPP) v Lenihan

The DPP sought to review a four year sentence imposed for possession of cocaine on two counts to run concurrently, with the last two and a half years to be suspended on grounds of leniency. The trial judge had found an early plea, the extent of the applicant’s co-operation and the fact the applicant continued to work and rehabilitate himself, all to be cumulatively mitigating factors

Held by the Court of Criminal Appeal, per Denham J. that the although the respondent was entitled to a reduction in sentence for his plea, he had been caught red handed and his assistance to the Gardai had been limited. There was a further reduction for his lack of previous convictions and his remorse. The appropriate sentence was one of seven years imprisonment

Reporter: E.F.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1993 S2

MISUSE OF DRUGS REGS 1998 SI 328/1988

MISUSE OF DRUGS (AMDT) REGS 1993 SI 342/1993

MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT 1977 S5

MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT 1977 S15(a)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1999 S4

MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT 1977 S3

MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT 1977 S23

AG, PEOPLE v O'DRISCOLL 1972 1 FREWEN 351

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1993 S2(1)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1993 S2(3)

DPP v BYRNE 1995 1 ILRM 279

MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT 1977 S15(a)(1)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1999 S5

MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT 1977 S27

MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT 1977 S27(3)

MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT 1977 S3(b)

MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT 1977 S3(c)

DPP v RENALD UNREP CCA 23.11.2001 2001/8/2140

DPP v HOGARTY UNREP KEANE 21.12.2001 2001/7/1848

DPP v GALLIGAN UNREP CCA 23.7.2003

DPP v DUCQUE UNREP CCA 15.7.2005 2005/19/3955 2005 IECCA 92

Denham J.
1

1. The Director of Public Prosecutions applied to this Court for a review of the sentence imposed on Rory Lernihan, the respondent, hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent', on the 23rd June, 2006, by Cork Circuit Criminal Court, on the basis that the sentence was unduly lenient in all the circumstances of the case. The sentence in issue is one of four years imprisonment on each of two counts, to run concurrently, the final two and a half years to be suspended.

2

2. The respondent had been sent forward by the District Court to the Cork Circuit Criminal Court on a signed plea of guilty on two charges. The charges were:

3

Charge 1: Rory Lernihan on the 13th of December, 2004 at Silversprings Lane, Mayfield, Cork had in his possession a controlled drug, namely cocaine for the purpose of selling or otherwise supplying it to another and at the time the drugs were in his possession their market value exceed €13,000 in contravention of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 1988 and 1993 as made under Section 5 of the Misuse of Drugs Act,1977 contrary to Section 15A of the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1977 as inserted by Section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1999.

4

Charge 2: Rory Lernihan on the 13th of December 2004 at 14 Ashmount Court, Mayfield Cork had in his possession a controlled drug, namely cannabis resin contrary to Section 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Act,1977.

5

3. In sentencing the trial judge stated:

"In the circumstances of this case there has been [a plea] for the possession of 1 kilo of cocaine and a Section 3 plea in relation to the cannabis. The amount of the cocaine was 1 kilo, which allegedly the street value is 72K, perhaps not the biggest amount of drugs in the context of this court to come before the court. But what has struck me in this case over and above any other case is, if you like, this man was in some comfort working. He was not a drug addict when he knowingly got involved in this trade. I accept what the Sergeant says that now that he is caught he is unlikely ever to get involved again. He did it for money. That is all the downside.

The mitigating side: he has pleaded guilty, he pleaded guilty in early course, he has shown remorse, he is unlikely to get involved again.

Now weighing everything one with the other, I believe there has to be a custodial sentence. I know it is going to have a very serious effect on him and bring devastation to his family, but I believe in the context of this case where somebody knowingly gets involved in the trade of drugs, that one of the consequences of that trade is you are going to lose your liberty. There is definitely sufficient, in this case, which allows me to depart [the] from the mandatory 10 years sentence, in other words it would be unjust to impose a 10 year sentence.

So given that the facts allow me to depart from a 10 years sentence. What sentence do I think appropriate? In all of the circumstances I would regard a sentence … First of all, in the ordinary course of events, without the mitigating factors, I would say a sentence of four years would be appropriate. There are exceptional mitigating factors in this case because of the early plea, the extent of the co-operation and the fact that he has continued to work and rehabilitate himself, I will take that into account. So what I will do is I will suspend the … he will serve 18 months and I will suspend the balance of the four years."

6

4. The Director of Public Prosecutions has applied to this Court on the following grounds:-

7

(i) The sentencing court erred in law and in fact in being unduly lenient when having accepted the mitigating factors put forward by the respondent were exceptional and specific circumstances which would make a sentence of not less than ten years imprisonment unjust and having deemed in those circumstances that the appropriate sentence was four years, the sentencing court then relied on the same mitigating factors to suspend the balance of the sentence once the respondent had served eighteen months of the four years.

8

(ii) The sentencing court erred in law and in fact in being unduly lenient by failing to attach sufficient weight to the gravity of the offence for which the maximum penalty is life imprisonment and the existence of a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years imprisonment.

9

(iii) The sentencing court erred in law and in fact in being unduly lenient when having determined that the appropriate sentence was below the statutory minimum it failed to consider whether the sentence should be increased to the minimum sentence.

10

(iv) The sentencing court erred in law and in fact in being unduly lenient when it determined that the early plea of guilty and the circumstances of the respondent were exceptional and specific circumstances to the respondent which would make a sentence of not less than ten years imprisonment unjust in all the circumstances.

11

(v) The sentencing court erred in law and in fact in being unduly lenient in determining that the respondent materially assisted in the investigation of the offence to the extent that it created exceptional and specific circumstances relating to the offence or the respondent which would make a sentence of not less than ten years imprisonment unjust in all the circumstances.

12

(vi) The sentencing court erred in law and in fact in being unduly lenient in the weight it attached to the early plea of the respondent, the extent of his cooperation, the necessity for rehabilitation, the absence of previous conviction and the degree of remorse when determining the appropriate sentence.

13

(vii) The sentencing court erred in law and in fact in being unduly lenient in failing to attach sufficient weight to the fact that the respondent was not addicted to drugs and consequently not in need of rehabilitation, was employed and admitted engaging in the offence for monetary gain.

14

(viii) The sentencing court erred in law and in fact in being unduly lenient in determining that the consequence for the respondent's family was a matter which it should take into consideration in considering whether or not there were exceptional circumstances that rendered a sentence of not less than ten years imprisonment unjust.

15

5. The essential facts are that on the 13th December, 2004 members of the drug squad stopped and searched the respondent in Silversprings Lane, Cork, at approximately 6.30 p.m., pursuant to s. 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1977, as amended. He was brought to Mayfield Garda Station for the purpose of the search and he was found to have a bag on his person containing a kilo of cocaine. He was arrested and detained. A warrant was obtained and his house was searched and a small amount of cannabis resin was found. The kilo of cocaine would have a market value of approximately 72,000 euro. The cannabis was of a nominal street value and it was accepted that it was for personal use.

16

Detective Sergeant Larry O'Brien gave evidence as follows. The respondent gave limited cooperation to the authorities. At interview he claimed he had received the cocaine a short time earlier and that he was holding it for a certain...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • DPP v Brian Wall
    • Ireland
    • Court of Criminal Appeal
    • 29 July 2011
    ...DRUGS ACT 19771977 S 27(3B) CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1999 S5 DPP v BYRNE 1995 1 ILRM 279 DPP v LERNIHAN UNREP MURPHY 18.4.2007 2007/19/3889 2007 IECCA 21 DPP v MCGINTY 2007 1 IR 633 DPP v RENALD UNREP CCA 23.11.2001 2001/8/2040 DPP v BOTHA 2004 2 IR 375 DPP v ALEXIOU 2003 3 IR 513 DPP v MCCORMA......
  • DPP v Murtagh
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 25 June 2015
    ...from the courts, in enforcing the statutory policy clearly laid down by the Oireachtas. DPP v. Duffy CCA 21/12/2001; DPP v. Lernihan CCA 2007 IECCA 21. Couriers play an essential role in the illegal drugs trade and if they willingly go into it for financial reward can't expect less than sev......
  • DPP v Keith Jervis and Another
    • Ireland
    • Court of Criminal Appeal
    • 25 March 2014
    ......286 to 287, that ‘ nothing but a substantial departure from what would be regarded as the appropriate sentence would justify the intervention of this Court .’ (see also  The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v. Lernihan  (Unreported Court of Criminal Appeal 18th April 2007, per Denham J). This has been the universal principle guiding the Court from the beginning.  The section  . 32 The provision commonly referred to as section 15A was inserted into the Misuse of ......
  • DPP v Flanagan
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 1 May 2015
    ...[2008] IECCA 5(ex tempore, Court of Criminal Appeal, 14 th January, 2008); The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v. Rory Lernihan [2007] IECCA 21 (unreported, Court of Criminal Appeal, 18th April, 2007); The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v. Derek Long [2009] 3 I.R. 486; Th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT