BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Irish Court of Criminal Appeal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Irish Court of Criminal Appeal >> D.P.P. (People) v. Thompson [2008] IECCA 80 (30 May 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECCA/2008/2008_IECCA_80.html Cite as: [2008] IECCA 80 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
Neutral Citation: [2008] IECCA 80
THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Kearns J.
Herbert J.
de Valera J.
[Record No. 4 CJA/2008]
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 2 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1993
BETWEEN
THE PEOPLE AT THE SUIT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
APPLICANT
V
BRIAN THOMPSON
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT of the Court (ex tempore) delivered the 30th day of May, 2008 by Kearns J.
The Director has brought this application pursuant to Section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 seeking a review of the sentence imposed in this case on the grounds it was unduly lenient. The facts are fairly
-2-
straightforward. Mr. Thompson is a native of, or lived in, Liverpool and, having been approached to carry out a particular drug related transaction, came to this country for that purpose. However, due to good intelligence work on the part of the Garda Siochana, he was observed to get out of a motor vehicle at a venue near Dublin on 14th September, 2006, walk towards a lorry and hand a white bag to an individual on the passenger side of the lorry.
The Gardai intervened. Mr. Thompson tried to run away but was quickly apprehended and five people present were arrested by the Gardai and it was then discovered on examination of the lorry that there was a very large amount of cocaine in the lorry. The street value of the cocaine was estimated at €585,000, a very substantial haul indeed. The bag which Mr. Thompson had in his possession since he arrived in Dublin was found to contain €85,000 in cash.
Quite clearly the cash was to facilitate the handover of a very serious quantity of drugs. Let's put it this way, if the money had switched hands and he had been in possession of the package, quite clearly the charge would have been framed in different terms: it wouldn't be conspiracy to possess drugs for supply but it would have been a Section 15A charge in respect of which the sentence, except in exceptional circumstances, has been clearly prescribed now by the Oireachtas as being ten years.
-3-
There are merits in some aspects of the respondent's situation in that, although he did have sixteen prior convictions going back over the years, a lot of those were a long time ago and only two of them related to drugs. That is a factor in his favour to some extent. However, he was forty-seven years of age at the time of this offence so he was not a person who can invoke youth or immaturity as the reason for what he did. During a period he avoided the attention of the law. He cleared up a personal drug problem but shortly before this offence apparently relapsed into addiction because a long term relationship had broken up.
He was caught red-handed but nonetheless the Court, even in those circumstances, grant a credit for the fact that a person has entered a plea and facilitated the disposal of the business of the Court by so doing.
The Court has reached a very clear view that the sentence which was imposed in this case was grossly inadequate for the particular offence. In effect, it only came to a one year sentence for this conspiracy which was on the brink of execution when it was thwarted. In suspending four years of the sentence the learned circuit court judge was attaching a condition which could never be enforced in this jurisdiction in that the suspended balance of the sentence could only ever take effect in the unlikely event that Mr. Thompson came back to this jurisdiction and re-offended. That fact has not been disputed by counsel on his behalf and is
-4-
sufficient to grant this court jurisdiction to look afresh at this case and substitute what it considers an appropriate sentence in the circumstances.
Firstly, this is not a section 15A offence. It is a different statutory offence and it is not hedged about with the same mandatory type requirements of a Section 15A sentencing situation.
Nonetheless the Court would be of the view that having regard to the amount of the cash and drugs involved here the sentence in the order of ten years would be appropriate. The Court will bear in mind that if such a sentence were to be imposed it would impose additional hardships on Mr. Thompson given that he is a native of Liverpool and for family and other contacts to visit him might create certain difficulties. He is also entitled to some credit for his plea of guilty.
In all the circumstances the Court is satisfied that the Director is entitled to succeed in this application and will impose a five year sentence without any suspensions and will vary the order already made to that extent.
