Report on Mandatory Sentences - Law Reform Commission

circumstance. 76 In this regard, the Court of Criminal Appeal has distinguished between those who are
vulnerable and those who willingly engaged in the drug trade for financial gain. 77
4.42 The matters that mitigate the severity of the sentence include previous good character,
rehabilitation and the particular burden of a custodial sentence. Thus, the fact that an offender was
previously of good character may be considered an exceptional and specific circumstance. 78 An offender
may be treated as being of previous good character where he or she has previous convictions which are
either minor and unrelated to drug trafficking, 79 or which date back some time. 80 The fact that an offender
has sought to overcome a drug addiction 81 or is unlikely to re-offend 82 may be considered exceptional and
specific circumstances. Where certain factors would render a custodial sentence particularly burdensome
for an offender (for example, where an offender is a foreign national 83 or suffers from ill-health 84 ) these
may also constitute exceptional and specific circumstances.
(c)
Aggravating Factors
4.43 Section 27(3D)(c) 85 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977, as amended, provides that the court, when
deciding whether it would be unjust in all the circumstances to impose the minimum sentence, may have
regard to: (i) any previous drug trafficking convictions, and (ii) the public interest in preventing drug
trafficking.
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
The People (DPP) v Alexiou [2003] 3 IR 513 at 518-519; The People (DPP) v Botha [2004] 2 IR 375; and The
People (DPP) v Whitehead [2008] IECCA 123. See: The People (DPP) v Long [2006] IECCA 49; and The
People (DPP) v Henry Court of Criminal Appeal 15 May 2002 in relation to offenders who have a high level of
involvement in the drugs trade. See also: The People (DPP) v Wall [2011] IECCA 45 in which the Court of
Criminal Appeal took into account the fact that the role of the accused was as a courier and storeman and that
he was “not higher up the ladder of organisation of evil trade in contraband”.
The People (DPP) v Hogarty Court of Criminal Appeal 21 December 2001; and The People (DPP) v Farrell
[2010] IECCA 116.
The People (DPP) v Galligan Court of Criminal Appeal 23 July 2003; The People (DPP) v Duffy Court of
Criminal Appeal 21 December 2001; and The People (DPP) v Wall [2011] IECCA 45.
The People (DPP) v Galligan Court of Criminal Appeal 23 July 2003; The People (DPP) v McGrane [2010]
IECCA 8; The People (DPP) v Keogh [2009] IECCA 128; and The People (DPP) v Ormonde [2011] IECCA 46.
The People (DPP) v Botha [2004] 2 IR 375; and The People (DPP) v Purcell [2010] IECCA 55
The People (DPP) v Anderson [2010] IECCA 46; and The People (DPP) v Ryan [2008] IECCA 63. See also:
The People (DPP) v Deans [2012] IECCA 11, in which the Court of Criminal Appeal was “impressed” by the
“significant steps” taken by the appellant to deal with his addiction (particular emphasis was placed on a series
of clear urinalysis results obtained by the appellant over the course of several months); and The People (DPP)
v Murphy [2010] IECCA 44 in which the Court was influenced by the fact that the applicant had not only “made
significant progress” in terms of his own rehabilitation but had become an outreach coordinator and was
facilitating the rehabilitation of others.
The People (DPP) v Renald Court of Criminal Appeal 23 November 2001; The People (DPP) v Malric [2011]
IECCA 99; and The People (DPP) v Wall [2011] IECCA 45.
The People (DPP) v Renald Court of Criminal Appeal 23 November 2001; The People (DPP) v Foster Court of
Criminal Appeal 15 May 2002; The People (DPP) v Whitehead [2008] IECCA 123; The People (DPP) v Malric
[2011] IECCA 99; and The People (DPP) v Harding [2011] IECCA 20.
The People (DPP) v Kinahan [2008] IECCA 5; The People (DPP) v Vardacardis Court of Criminal Appeal 20
January 2003; and The People (DPP) v Harding [2011] IECCA 20.
Formerly, section 27(3CC).
138