DPP v Maunsell
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Birmingham J. |
| Judgment Date | 10 November 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] IECA 7 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Ireland) |
| Date | 10 November 2014 |
[2014] IECA 7
THE COURT OF APPEAL
Ryan P
Birmingham J.
Irvine J.
MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT 1977 S15
MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT 1977 S3
DPP v MCGINTY 2007 1 IR 633 2006 IECCA 37
DPP v ECCLES UNREP CCA 8.10.2003 2003/15/3331
MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT 1977 S15(A)
Appeal – Sentence Severity – Misuse of Drugs Act – Practice and Procedures – Bail – Consent – Rehabilitation – Drug Addiction
Facts: The case concerned an appeal against the severity of a sentence imposed in respect of an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The appellant sought to challenge the judge"s conclusions on the appropriate sentence, namely that the sentencing judge had failed to take into account the appellants efforts at rehabilitation at that point, that he had failed to encourage further rehabilitation and that he had failed to balance effectively mitigating and aggravating factors.
Held by the Court, having regard to the seriousness of the offence and the continuing rehabilitation of the appellant, that there had been sufficient evidence available to the Circuit Court judge to take a chance on the appellant and to refrain from imposing an immediate custodial sentence. Acknowledging the significant progress of the appellant, it was the Court"s view that it was appropriate to suspend the sentence with the appellant entering into his own bond in the sum of €100 to keep the peace for two years.
1. This is a case where Mr. Maunsell appeals against the severity of the sentence imposed on him in the Dublin Circuit Court, the sentence being appealed is one of twelve months imprisonment in respect of an offence under s. 15 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, a s. 3 offence being taken into account. It is of some significance that the sentencing judge initially provided for a stay for fourteen days on the execution of the warrant and that was apparently designed to give Mr. Maunsell an opportunity to organise his affairs before going into custody, but that as it happened during the fourteen day period, there was a successful application for bail to the court of Court of Criminal Appeal, the predecessor of this Court. It has been indicated that in what must have been an unusual occurrence that the admission to bail was on consent.
2. The circumstances of the offence are that on the 1 st March, 2010, the appellant was in a motor car with three others, when the vehicle was stopped and searched. A sum of cash was located in the course of that search in the possession of one of the other occupants of the vehicle. There was a second search then of the same car shortly after and on this occasion, the cash which had been there the first time, was no longer there. In those circumstances the appellant and others were brought to Ballyfermot garda station. There he was searched and found to be in possession of two white packages containing a brown substance, which on analysis, turned out to be heroin.
3. It will be noted that at the station he had to be restrained as he appeared to be trying to conceal something. The heroin in question has an estimated street value of €1,904.40 when broken down into €20 bags, but the appellant indicated that he had paid €400 for it during the course of the interview.
4. In the course of that interview, he admitted possession of the heroin and that he would sell it to people who called.
5. The appellant's circumstances are that he is from Clonmel, he had been in a relationship and had a child from that relationship.
6. So far as previous convictions are concerned, he has seventeen previous convictions, including offences of theft and public order. Of significance is that two convictions in 2009 related to s. 3 and s. 15 of the Misuse of Drugs Act and for those offences, he received a sentence of eight months imprisonment.
7. The evidence on behalf of the prosecution in the Circuit Court was given by Garda Eustace and the prosecuting member accepted in the course of that evidence that there had been a direction for summary disposal by the DPP, but that jurisdiction was refused, that the appellant had indicated that he would have paid around €400 for the drugs and that the appellant was at the lower end of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Emerson v DPP
...response to the appellant's grounds of appeal and seeks inter alia to distinguish this case from the facts of the case in DPP v. Maunsell [2014] IECA 7, that in all the circumstances of the case while it may well be that some errors were made by the learned trial judge the overall effect of......