04.02.2015 Views

Report on Mandatory Sentences - Law Reform Commission

Report on Mandatory Sentences - Law Reform Commission

Report on Mandatory Sentences - Law Reform Commission

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Bill which would, am<strong>on</strong>g other matters, strengthen the presumptive sentencing provisi<strong>on</strong>s for drug<br />

offences. 319 The amendments were finalised in the wake of the fatal shooting of D<strong>on</strong>na Cleary in March<br />

2006. The shooting had led to public outcry not <strong>on</strong>ly because of the senselessness of the act but also<br />

because it transpired that <strong>on</strong>e of those suspected to have been involved had been c<strong>on</strong>victed of an<br />

offence under secti<strong>on</strong> 15A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1997 in 1999. 320 Had he been sentenced to the<br />

“mandatory” term of 10 years rather than a term of six years, he would have c<strong>on</strong>tinued to serve his<br />

sentence in 2006. The amended Bill thus proposed a number of changes to the law regarding drug<br />

offences, 321 two of which are relevant to this <str<strong>on</strong>g>Report</str<strong>on</strong>g>. First, it proposed to create a new offence of<br />

importing drugs with a value of €13,000 or more, which would be punishable by a minimum sentence of<br />

10 years. Sec<strong>on</strong>d, it proposed to strengthen the existing mandatory sentencing provisi<strong>on</strong>s for certain<br />

drug trafficking offences by obliging the sentencing court to c<strong>on</strong>sider evidence of previous drug trafficking<br />

c<strong>on</strong>victi<strong>on</strong>s. In its final form, the Criminal Justice Act 2006 made these and other amendments to the<br />

Misuse of Drugs Act 1977.<br />

2.140 First, secti<strong>on</strong> 81 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 amended secti<strong>on</strong> 15A by inserting subsecti<strong>on</strong><br />

(3A). Secti<strong>on</strong> 15A(3A) clarified that mens rea regarding the value of the drugs involved was not an<br />

element of the offence. Thus, the prosecuti<strong>on</strong> needed <strong>on</strong>ly to establish that the accused knew that he or<br />

she was in possessi<strong>on</strong> of drugs with intent to sell or supply and not that he or she knew the value of the<br />

drugs involved. 322<br />

2.141 Sec<strong>on</strong>d, secti<strong>on</strong> 82 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 inserted secti<strong>on</strong> 15B and secti<strong>on</strong> 84<br />

amended secti<strong>on</strong> 27. The effect was to create a new offence of importing c<strong>on</strong>trolled drugs with a value of<br />

€13,000 or more, which would be subject to the same penalty provisi<strong>on</strong>s as applicable to offences under<br />

secti<strong>on</strong> 15A. Previously, the offence of importing c<strong>on</strong>trolled drugs had attracted a maximum sentence of<br />

14 years’ impris<strong>on</strong>ment. 323 The Minister indicated that it would be strange for this to c<strong>on</strong>tinue to be the<br />

case when an offence under secti<strong>on</strong> 15A now attracted a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years’<br />

impris<strong>on</strong>ment and a maximum of life impris<strong>on</strong>ment. 324<br />

2.142 Third, secti<strong>on</strong> 84 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 inserted subsecti<strong>on</strong> (3CC) into secti<strong>on</strong> 27.<br />

Secti<strong>on</strong> 27(3CC) 325 provided that the court, when deciding whether or not the 10-year minimum would be<br />

appropriate in a given case, could have regard to: (a) any previous drug trafficking c<strong>on</strong>victi<strong>on</strong>s, and (b)<br />

the public interest in preventing drug trafficking. While there remained judicial discreti<strong>on</strong> to determine<br />

whether regard should, in actual fact, be had to these factors and the weight to be attributed to them, the<br />

intenti<strong>on</strong> of the Oireachtas to narrow the aperture through which the judiciary could justify the impositi<strong>on</strong><br />

319<br />

320<br />

321<br />

322<br />

323<br />

324<br />

325<br />

Dáil Debates, Criminal Justice Bill 2004, Sec<strong>on</strong>d Stage, 15 February 2005, Vol 597, No 5.<br />

“<strong>Mandatory</strong> Drug Offence Terms rarely imposed” Irish Times 7 March 2006; Lally and Reid “<strong>Sentences</strong> for<br />

Drugs, Gun Crimes questi<strong>on</strong>ed after Killing” Irish Times 7 March 2006; and Browne “Now that would be a<br />

Watershed” Irish Times 8 March 2006.<br />

Dáil Debates, Criminal Justice Bill 2004 Moti<strong>on</strong>, 28 March 2006, Vol 617, No 97.<br />

In The People (DPP) v Power [2007] 2 IR 509 at 522, the Supreme Court c<strong>on</strong>firmed that even before the<br />

inserti<strong>on</strong> of subsecti<strong>on</strong> (3A), secti<strong>on</strong> 15A had not required the prosecuti<strong>on</strong> to establish mens rea regarding the<br />

value of the drugs. As a result, a number of earlier decisi<strong>on</strong>s which had held that mens rea was an element of<br />

the offence were overruled. See, for example: The People (DPP) v Charles Portlaoise Circuit Court 13 July<br />

2004.<br />

Regulati<strong>on</strong> 4 of the Misuse of Drugs Regulati<strong>on</strong>s 1988 and secti<strong>on</strong> 27(6) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977.<br />

Select Committee <strong>on</strong> Justice, Equality, Defence and Women’s Rights Debates, Criminal Justice Bill 2004,<br />

Committee Stage, 11 May 2006.<br />

Select Committee <strong>on</strong> Justice, Equality, Defence and Women’s Rights Debates, Criminal Justice Bill 2004,<br />

Committee Stage, 11 May 2006, Mr McDowell TD.<br />

Now secti<strong>on</strong> 27(3D)(c).<br />

80

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!