The People (At the Suit of the DPP) v Samantha Sinnott
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Ms. Justice Ní Raifeartaigh |
| Judgment Date | 04 February 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] IECA 42 |
| Date | 04 February 2021 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Ireland) |
| Docket Number | 46/20 266/19 |
[2021] IECA 42
Birmingham P.
Donnelly J.
Ní Raifeartaigh J.
46/20
37/20
266/19
THE COURT OF APPEAL
Sentencing – Money laundering – Undue leniency – Appellant seeking review of sentences – Whether sentences were unduly lenient
Facts: The respondents, Ms Sinnott, Mr Long and Mr Joyce, each pleaded guilty to a sole count of money laundering contrary to s. 7(1)(a)(i), s. 7(1)(b) and s. 7(3) of the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act 2010. Ms Sinnott received a sentence of 12 months imprisonment wholly suspended. Mr Long received a sentence of two and a half years imprisonment wholly suspended. Mr Joyce received a sentence of 5 years with two years suspended. The appellant, the Director of Public Prosecutions, applied to the Court of Appeal pursuant to the provisions of s. 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993, seeking to review the sentences on the grounds of undue leniency.
Held by the Court that Ms Sinnott’s case had all the hallmarks of a normally law-abiding citizen who made one extremely foolish and rash error of judgment but who followed up with responsible behaviour in her co-operation with the Gardaí and dealings with the courts. Notwithstanding the grave nature of the offence of money laundering and the amount of money involved, the Court was of the view that this was one of those rare cases which falls into the exceptional category of cases in which a wholly suspended sentence was within the appropriate range of the trial judge’s discretion. The Court did not consider that the application met the threshold set out in the “undue leniency” cases and refused the application for review of the sentence on grounds of undue leniency in the case of Ms Sinnott. The Court held that, in Mr Long’s case, this was not a once-off, impulsive act, such as had occurred in Ms Sinnott’s case; the evidence was that he had become caught up with a criminal gang, taking the opportunity to make easy money by collecting money on its behalf. In the circumstances, the Court was of the view that the identification of a 4-year headline sentence was too lenient and the Court would not have had a difficulty if the headline sentence was identified as one of 6 years. The Court held that in view of the seriousness of the offence, this sentence was unduly lenient and would be quashed. The Court held that, in Mr Joyce’s case, notwithstanding the mitigation, he was given an unduly lenient sentence insofar as the judge reduced the headline sentence of 7 years to one of 5 years and then additionally suspended the last 2 years. The Court held that the sentence would be quashed on the basis of undue leniency.
The Court held that, in resentencing Mr Long, it would set the headline sentence at 6 years. The Court took into account the mitigating factors and had regard to the fact that the imposition of a custodial sentence on appeal when Mr Long received a non-custodial sentence at first instance, and given the passage of time, carried an extra dimension of disappointment and impact upon Mr Long. In the circumstances, the Court proposed imposing a sentence of 2 and a half years imprisonment and would hear submissions as to the commencement date of sentence. In resentencing Mr Joyce, the Court held that, notwithstanding that it took the view that the headline sentence could have been higher, it would accept the headline sentence imposed by the sentencing judge, namely 7 years, as the starting point. Taking into account the mitigating circumstances and the passage of time since the sentence at first instance together with the fact that Mr Joyce was close to release or may even have been released in recent times, the Court held that it would reduce the actual sentence from the headline of 7 to an actual custodial sentence of 4 years; the sentence must take into account time actually served.
First appeal dismissed. Second and third appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT of the Court delivered on the 4th day of February 2021 by Ms. Justice Ní Raifeartaigh
This judgment deals with three applications brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions (“DPP”) pursuant to the provisions of s. 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993, seeking to review sentences on the grounds of undue leniency.
Each application concerns a respondent who pleaded guilty to a sole count of money laundering contrary to s.7(1)(a)(i), s.7(1)(b) and s.7(3) of the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act 2010 (“the Act of 2010”). The maximum penalty for an offence contrary to s.7 of the Act of 2010 is fourteen years.
Ms. Sinnott received a sentence of 12 months imprisonment wholly suspended. Mr. Long received a sentence of two and a half years imprisonment wholly suspended. Mr. Joyce received a sentence of 5 years with two years suspended.
On the 22 September, 2018, Gardaí from the Garda National Drugs and Organised Crime Bureau were involved in a money-laundering investigation in Wexford, which led to a number of men being arrested in Wexford Town.
A follow-on search took place later that evening at an address in Foulksmills, County Wexford, where Ms. Sinnott was present. She herself was not under investigation at that time. A number of Gardaí attended in order to search the property. During the search, a safe was located in the concrete in the floor of the hot press. The key was then located for this safe and it was discovered that the safe was empty. Detective Garda Dunne cautioned Ms. Sinnott and asked her about the empty safe. She told him that she had emptied the safe and taken the contents in two bags to her house which was approximately two miles away. Gardaí then went to her house in Ballymitty, County Wexford. She permitted them to enter and handed two rucksacks to the Gardaí. The rucksacks contained a large amount of cash totaling a sum of €109,890, which the Gardaí seized. In light of the fact that Ms. Sinnott had a four-week-old baby, they left at that stage and returned the following day.
Ms. Sinnott was arrested, taken to Wexford Garda Station, detained under s. 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1984, and interviewed pursuant to caution. She made certain admissions. She said that she “had suspected that the cash that was in the safe was the proceeds of crime, or certainly illegal activity”. She admitted that she had discovered this money and removed it because she believed the money belonged to her partner. She said that she had heard on the radio that day that a number of men had been arrested in Wexford Town and had become nervous. She then removed the money from the premises in order to protect her partner.
To date, no charges have been brought against her partner in respect of this matter.
Ms. Sinnott entered an early plea of guilty on the 16 May, 2019, at Wexford Circuit Criminal Court. She pleaded guilty to one count of money laundering contrary to s.7(1)(a)(i), s.7(1)(b) and s.7(3) of the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering & Terrorist Financing) Act 2010.
When considering the sentence, the sentencing judge set out the following mitigating factors:
-
a) The respondent's age (40);
-
b) Her personal circumstances (five children including a baby);
-
c) The early guilty plea;
-
d) The fact that the respondent is employed as a community midwife together with a very positive reference from Wexford General hospital which was furnished to the court;
-
e) The fact that she “wasn't involved in criminal activity or in money laundering until she discovered the money or opened the safe and then decided she was going to move the money”;
-
f) Her co-operation with the Gardaí; she made full admissions to the Gardaí, brought them to the property where the money was then located, and gave them the rucksacks containing the money;
-
g) The fact that the respondent was remorseful and had no previous convictions;
-
h) The probation and welfare report, which classified her conduct as “a very serious error of judgment”;
-
i) The opinion of the probation officer that she was at very low risk of reoffending, as well as Garda Dunne's similar opinion.
The sentencing judge then expressed the view that the appropriate headline sentence would be a sentence of two and a half years. Taking into account the mitigating factors, he imposed an actual sentence of 12 months imprisonment, suspended in its entirety on the respondent entering her own bond in the sum of €200 to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. In sentencing the accused, the Court noted that she had availed of counselling and for that reason did not impose any other conditions.
Although Mr. Joyce's case also arises out of the search by the Gardaí at Foulksmills as described above, the Court will deal with Mr. Long's case next because it considers it appropriate to deal with the cases in ascending order of gravity.
On the 27 March, 2017, members of An Garda Síochána searched an address at Barntown, County Wexford, the home of Mr. Long. They were in possession of a search warrant (issued for the purpose of searching for drugs). Mr. Long was present during the search. In one room they found a Centra shopping bag, among other items, and in the bag there were numerous bundles of cash which came to the sum of €201,000. Mr. Long was cautioned and questioned and he told Gardaí that he collected the money on behalf of another individual in Gorey and that this person was to collect the money from the dwelling that day. He made a cautioned statement to that effect at the scene.
Mr. Long was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DPP v Brady
...the case, particularly having regard to the guidance offered by this Court in its judgment in The People (DPP) v. Sinnott, Long and Joyce [2021] IECA 42. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that given that the maximum sentence available in respect of money laundering is 14 years impriso......
-
DPP v Rakovac
...expressed as concurrent with the other offence for which sentence was imposed. 31 Further reliance was placed on DPP v. Sinnott & Ors [2021] IECA 42 at paragraphs 33 and 34, as to the court's determination of what might be viewed as an appropriate sentence for a money laundering offence. In......