Irish Court of Appeal

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Irish Court of Appeal >> Director of Public Prosecutions v Hill [2019] IECA 305 (05 December 2019)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECA/2019/2019IECA305.html
Cite as: [2019] IECA 305

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

Page 1 ⇓

THE COURT OF APPEAL

Birmingham J.

Edwards J.

Donnelly J.

Record No: 162/2019

THE PEOPLE (AT THE SUIT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS)

RESPONDENT

GARRETT HILL

APPELLANT

JUDGMENT of the Court (ex tempore) delivered on the 5th day of December, 2019 by

Mr. Justice Edwards

Introduction

1. This matter comes before this court by way of an appeal against severity of sentence. On

the 4th of July 2019, the appellant was before Cork Circuit Criminal Court for sentencing

on foot of two criminal Bills, in the following circumstances.

2. The appellant had been returned for trial on indictment on Bill No CKDP0083/2017 (for

convenience, “83/17”) which contained a total of 10 counts relating to various drugs

offences arising out of two incidents, both of which were said to have occurred on the

same day, i.e., the 25th of August 2016. He initially pleaded not guilty to all counts upon

arraignment, and his trial commenced on the 23rd of May 2019. On the following day,

i.e., day two of the trial, the appellant asked to be re-arraigned. He then pleaded guilty to

counts no’s 5 and 6, respectively on the indictment, both of which charged him with

possession of a controlled drug for the purposes of sale or supply, contrary to s. 15 of the

Misuse of Drugs Act 1977. This was indicated as being acceptable to the Director of Public

Prosecutions, whose counsel indicated that in due course a nolle prosequi would be

entered in respect of the remaining counts. His sentencing was then adjourned, and

ultimately proceeded on the 4th of July 2019.

3. The appellant was also before the court on the 4th of July 2019 for sentencing on six

charges on criminal Bill No CYDP0158/2017 (for convenience “158/17”) in respect of

which he had signed pleas of guilty in the District Court, which he had later affirmed. The

signed pleas were in respect of three charges of possession of a controlled drug for the

purposes of sale or supply, contrary to s. 15 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977, and three

charges of possession of a controlled drug, contrary to s. 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Act

1977. The charges related to the detection of separate quantities of cocaine, diamorphine

and cannabis at the home of the appellant. This had resulted in a s.15 charge and s.3

charge being preferred in respect of each type of drug. The offences on Bill No. 158/17

were committed while the appellant was on bail for the offences on Bill No 83/17.

4. The appellant was sentenced ultimately to a sentence of seven years’ imprisonment on

Count No 5 on Bill No 83/17 with Count No 6 being taken into consideration, to date from

Page 2 ⇓

13/01/2017, being the date on which he went into custody. That figure of seven years

was arrived at after various adjustments to a headline sentence and the application of

various sentencing principles which will be discussed later in this ex tempore judgment.

On Bill No 158/17 the sentencing judge treated the s.3 charges as being subsumed into

the s.15 charges and as not requiring separate sentences. In effect, they were taken into

consideration. He then sentenced the appellant to an ultimate of ten years’ imprisonment,

again after various adjustments to the headline sentence and application of sentencing

principles, on Count No 4 on that Bill, being the s.15 charge relating to the quantity of

diamorphine detected, and he took into consideration Counts No’s 1 & 5 on the same Bill,

which charged the same offence in respect of the quantities of cocaine and cannabis,

respectively, also detected. In circumstances where the offences on Bill No 158/17 had

been committed whilst the appellant was on bail, the 10-year sentence on Bill No 158/17

was made consecutive to the 7-year sentence on Bill No 83/17.

5. The appellant now appeals against the severity of these sentences.

Background Facts

Regarding the offences on Bill No 83/17

6. The court heard evidence that on the 25th of August, 2016, gardaí attached to Cork City

Divisional Drugs Unit received confidential information that the appellant, residing at 19

The View, Gleann Na Rí in Tower, Blarney, Cork, was in possession of a large consignment

of controlled drugs, and that he was using the home of a Mr Paul O’Rourke – Apartment

3, Unit 5, Blarney Shopping Centre, Blarney – to store same.

7. Based on this intelligence the gardaí immediately mounted surveillance on Paul

O’Rourke’s home. At approximately 2 pm, on the 25th of August 2016, both men arrived

in a SEAT León rental car, driven by the appellant. The appellant was carrying a suitcase,

and Paul O’Rourke was carrying a rucksack. They both entered the apartment.

8. Around 40 minutes later, both men returned to the car, and then drove to the car park of

Cork Builders Providers in Togher. Here they rendezvoused with a blue Volkswagen

Transporter driven by a Mr Nicholas Crowley. The appellant was observed exiting the

SEAT car, carrying a package, suspected to contain controlled drugs, over to the

passenger side of the Volkswagen Transporter, and then getting in to that vehicle. At this

point gardaí then intercepted the suspected drugs transaction and arrested all three men.

They recovered 55 grams of diamorphine valued at €7,713 from the glovebox of the

Volkswagen Transporter. Mr Crowley was believed by gardai to have been in the process

of purchasing these drugs from the other two men at the time of this interception.

9. A further 689 grams of diamorphine valued at €96,586 were later recovered from Paul

O’Rourke’s home in Blarney during a follow up search, bringing the total value of drugs

seized to €104,299.

10. The appellant, having been arrested and detained at Togher Garda Station, was

interviewed on six occasions but made no admissions. Despite this, forensic examination

Page 3 ⇓

of the items seized at both locations succeeded in establishing a link between them. Three

“sandwich” type plastic bags, described as partial bags, were found in the apartment. Part

of these had been torn away. The quantity of diamorphine found in the glove box of the

Volkswagon Transport was packed using this type of plastic, and it appeared on

examination to have been detached by tearing from a larger item. When the tear line on

the plastic in which the diamorphine recovered from the Volkswagon Transporter was

packaged was compared with the tear line on the partial bags found in the apartment

they were found to match up. In addition, the appellant’s DNA was recovered from the

partial bags found in the apartment. Furthermore, analysis of the phones seized from the

three men at the time of their arrest showed that the appellant had had several

conversations with Nicholas Crowley that day, while Paul O’Rourke had not, suggesting

that it was the appellant who was in charge of this drug trafficking operation.

11. The appellant was subsequently charged on the 27th of August, 2016, on Bill No 83/17,

with various offences including the two charges under s.15 of the Misuse of Drugs Act

1977 to which he ultimately pleaded guilty. One of these related to the diamorphine

recovered at Cork Builders Providers car park in Togher, and the other related to the

seizure of diamorphine at Apartment 3, Unit 5 in Blarney Shopping Centre.

12. During the appellant’s sentencing in respect of these offences, the court heard that the

appellant was the main organiser and was believed to have been operating as a drugs

wholesaler, whilst Paul O’Rourke was his ‘store man’, and Nicholas Crowley was a

customer.

Regarding the Offences on Bill No 158/2017

13. On the 12th of January 2017, at approximately 10.30 pm, gardaí from the Cork City

Divisional Drugs Unit, on foot of a search warrant issued pursuant to section 26 of the

Misuse of Drugs Act, approached the appellant’s home in Togher, Blarney. Two gardaí

entered the back garden to secure the rear of the house. Given both the time of year and

the time of day, it was dark. However, there were lights on in the rear conservatory of the

house, and the gardaí who entered the garden could clearly see the appellant in the

conservatory. He was observed to be engaged in repeatedly transferring cannabis from a

bag to a plastic cup atop a weighing scales. He was oblivious to the presence of the two

gardaí outside. Other gardaí knocked on the front door. The appellant was seemingly

unperturbed and went to answer the door, calmly removing his gloves as exited the room

and leaving the cannabis exposed in the conservatory and visible to anybody who might

enter it. He had been expecting gardaí to call, as they routinely did, to check up on him

as he was subject to a curfew as one of his bail conditions. However, he was clearly not

expecting an imminent search of his house on foot of a search warrant.

14. In the search that followed, 476 grams of cannabis was recovered, valued at €9,538. Also

found were 18 grams of diamorphine hidden in the cooker extractor fan, valued at

€2,537; and 12 grams of cocaine concealed in a shoe rack in the conservatory, valued at

€883. In total, the drugs valued at €12,958 were seized. €4,375 in cash was also seized

Page 4 ⇓

by gardaí, and was later forfeited to the State as representing the proceeds of drug

dealing.

15. It was accepted by the prosecution that the appellant’s guilty pleas, particularly in respect

Bill No 158/17 where the pleas were entered at the earliest opportunity, but also in

respect of Bill No 83/17, albeit that they were late pleas in that instance, were of

considerable benefit to the State, as they had obviated any necessity for undercover

gardaí who had performed surveillance to give evidence in open court. This was important

at a time when they were still operationally involved in Cork.

How the Co-offenders were dealt with

16. Both Paul O’Rourke and Nicholas Crowley were also charged with various offences arising

out of the seizures on the 25th of August 2016. They were dealt with separately from the

appellant, and had already been sentenced by the time he came to be sentenced.

17. Paul O’Rourke had ultimately pleaded guilty to a count of possession of controlled drugs

for sale or supply, with a value of €13,000 or more, contrary to s. 15A of the Misuse of

Drugs Act 1977 relating to the diamorphine found at his apartment, while Nicholas

Crowley had pleaded guilty to a count of possession of controlled drugs for sale or supply,

contrary to s. 15 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977, in relation to the diamorphine found in

the search of the Volkswagon Transporter.

18. Mr O’Rourke was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment with the final two years

suspended. Mr Crowley was sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment.

Appellant’s Personal Circumstances

19. The appellant is a 38 year old male, originally from Drogheda, Co Louth, who was born on

the 17th of January 1981. He is married to a Blarney based woman for more than 10

years and he has a number of children. He is unemployed.

20. The appellant has 23 previous convictions, including a conviction for a relevant offence. In

that regard he was convicted in the District Court in September 2014 of an offence under

s. 15 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1977 and was sentenced to five months’ imprisonment.

He also has three previous convictions for possession of controlled drugs contrary to s.3

of the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1977. In addition, he has two Circuit Court convictions,

namely one for possession of stolen property in May 2011 and one for assault causing

harm in May 2015. He received sentences of two years’ imprisonment, and twelve months

imprisonment, respectively, for those offences. The remainder of his convictions are for

road traffic offences.

21. The court below heard evidence that the appellant had been engaging well with education

services in the prison while on remand. He had a good disciplinary record, with just one

lapse, and was an enhanced prisoner. A Governor’s Report in respect of him was positive.

The court also heard that he retains the support of his wife, and a letter from her was

handed in.

The Sentencing Judge’s Remarks

Page 5 ⇓

22. The judge’s sentencing remarks in this case were lengthy and it is unnecessary to quote

them in full. However, it will be helpful to quote selected passages in respect of which

complaint is made or bearing on complaints that are made in the grounds of appeal.

23. The sentencing judge commenced by outlining the evidence he would be taking into

account, the range of available sentences, and several well recognised sentencing

principles. Having done so he observed:

“As Detective Cahalane has made clear, this man is indeed a cog in a particular

wheel and in many of these cases that's the question that's asked: Is the offender

a cog in the wheel or is the offender a victim of that wheel? In this case, it is clear

that this Mr Hill is indeed a cog in the wheel and when we say that, what wheel are

we talking about? And it's important that this Court must recognise what that

wheel is. It's a wheel of death, it's a wheel of destruction. It destroys lives, it

destroys families and communities and it is quite clear that Mr Hill is no fool, as is

evidenced by the governor's report, and he knows very well the consequences of

his actions and it is clear to this Court by virtue of his conduct between 2016 and

2017 that he showed a total disregard for those consequences.”

24. The sentencing judge went on to note the positive Governor’s report that had been

received, and the submission by counsel for the defence that this was evidence of

engagement in self -improvement and a desire to rehabilitate. He expressly rejected the

latter saying:

“…it is this Court's view that it is not its obligation or indeed its role to structure a

sentence in such a way as to make allowance for a prisoner who might change his

attitude to crime sometime in the future, to for example suspend, partially or

otherwise, or to reduce the sentence today which it might otherwise impose just in

case Mr Hill might so turn his back on crime into the future. The Court must again

remind itself that if a prisoner, if an offender decides in the future that he or she

will indeed so turn away from crime, that is the role of the parole board, not of this

Court. The question today, this very day, for this Court is whether this offender is

bettering himself while in custody to be a better criminal when he comes out or to

be a better citizen. It is this Court's strong view that this offender has shown no

signs whatsoever of remorse, no appreciation of the effect of his drug dealing, his

criminality, though he's clearly fully aware and may be presumed to be so fully

aware by this Court of the impact of his criminality on other drug users, their

families, their neighbours and communities. And we must always remember the

victims of drug-fuelled crimes. Indeed as we can see the impact that his actions

and the actions of his colleagues in drug dealing on the very stability in some parts,

the very stability of this State in many parts of this country.”

25. The sentencing judge stated that he had had the opportunity to observe the accused

during the opening of his trial in respect of the 2016 offences and that he had observed

“not a scintilla of evidence …of any remorse, regret, apology for his actions, not to mind

any intent of turning his back on the crimes that he’s committed”, and that there was

Page 6 ⇓

“nothing at all before this Court today that in this Court's view can allow it to embark on

any effort to incentivise rehabilitation, which is regrettable”.

26. The sentencing judge observed that the roles of Mr O’Rourke and Mr Crowley were not

comparable with that of the appellant, whom he regarded as being “the organiser in

chief”.

27. The sentencing judge went on to list what he regarded as aggravating factors in the case

as being “the nature of the offence, the role played by this man, the nature of the drug

involved, the type of drug, the value of the drug though in this Court's view the value is

not necessarily an extremely guiding factor”. He also referenced the appellant’s lack of

remorse and failure to co-operate as factors, which although not aggravating as such,

“which assist the Court, along with many other factors, that [it] is not his intention” to

give up a life of crime. The sentencing judge further referenced the appellant’s previous

convictions for drugs offences, and said that they must be treated as aggravating factors.

28. The sentencing judge then considered mitigation, and counsel for the appellant’s

contention that he should have regard to the fact that a lengthy prison sentence would

impose hardship on the appellant’s family. He expressed sympathy with their position but

commented that “the Court must show equal sympathy to all the other young people the

victims of drugs in this country and they must be afforded the same recognition as your

own family.”

29. He acknowledged that the pleas (on Bill 83/17) had the value conceded by the

prosecution and indicated that they must be treated as a mitigating factor. He then

commented:

“Beyond those factors, the Court finds very, very little by way of any further

mitigation that it can rely upon when it comes to imposing penalty in respect of

these two offences.

30. He considered possibly making the sentences for the offences on Bill 83/17 consecutive

inter se, but decided that it was not appropriate and that instead he would impose a

sentence on one offence, which would have to be custodial, and reflect “not only a

substantial element of penalty but of deterrence”, while taking the other into

consideration.

31. The sentencing judge characterised the gravity of the offences on Bill No 83/17 as being

“exceptionally high” and commented that “The offence could not be more grave.” He then

nominated a headline sentence of 10 years and discounted by two years from that for the

mitigating factors.

32. The sentencing judge then moved to deal with Bill No 158/17. He stated that “The general

comments already made by this Court apply equally to these offences. The same

aggravating factors apply but they're added to.” He identified as the additional

aggravating factors that there were three types of drugs involved, the fact that he was

Page 7 ⇓

brazenly preparing drugs for sale in his own home, with his children sleeping upstairs,

and notwithstanding that he was on bail and subject to a curfew.

33. On the mitigating side there was the different consideration, from that which had existed

in the case of the offences on Bill No 83/17, that he had signed pleas at the earliest

opportunity in the District Court, and he acknowledged the existence of jurisprudence

suggesting that this should be reflected with a serious level of discount for mitigation,

perhaps up to one third of the headline sentence.

34. The sentencing judge nominated a headline sentence of 15 years for the s.15 offences on

Bill No 158/17, but said that he would discount from that by four years to take account of

the mitigating factors, particularly the signed plea, leaving a net 11 years. He considered

imposing consecutive sentences for the s.15 offences but decided against that and instead

determined that he would simply impose one sentence for the s.15 offence involving the

diamorphine and would take the s.15 offences in respect of the cannabis and the cocaine

into consideration.

35. Having regard to s.11 of the Criminal Justice Act 1984 the sentencing judge recognised

that he was obliged to make the sentence on Bill No 158/17 consecutive to the sentence

on Bill No 83/17. That meant aggregating the 11 year net sentence on Bill No 158/17 with

the 8 year net sentence on Bill No 83/17, giving a cumulative sentence of 19 years. The

sentencing judge then reduced that by two years in application of the totality principle.

36. Grounds of Appeal

37. The appellant appeals on the following grounds:

In respect of 83/17

I. The sentencing judge erred in law and in fact in assessing the gravity of the

offence.

II. The sentencing judge erred in failing to give a sufficient discount from the headline

sentence having regard to the mitigating factors.

III. The sentence imposed on the appellant was disproportionate when having regard to

the sentence imposed on the co-accused.

In respect of 158/17

IV. The sentencing judge erred in identifying 15 years as the presumptive headline

sentence and in treating this offence as more serious than the offence under 83/17.

V. The sentencing judge did not afford appropriate discount for mitigating factors as in

keeping with case law

In respect of both bills

Page 8 ⇓

VI. The sentencing judge mischaracterised the character and conduct of the appellant

as aggravating rather than mitigating factors.

VII. The sentencing judge treated the appellant’s lack of an emotional response during

the open speech of Prosecution Counsel at his trial as evidence of a lack of remorse

on his part.

VIII. The sentencing judge erred in incorrectly applying the totality principle.

Submissions

38. The court received helpful written submissions from both sides for which it is grateful.

These were amplified in oral argument at the hearing of the appeal.

Discussion and Decision

The Sentence on Bill No: 83/17

39. Counsel for the appellant conceded before us that the headline sentence of 10 years

nominated for these offences was within the range of the judge’s discretion. While he

characterised it as towards the severe end of the range he could not say it was

disproportionate. Accordingly, his principal “stand alone” complaint in respect of the

sentencing on Bill No 83/17 was that too little discount had been given for the pleas of

guilty, albeit that they were late in the day. It had been conceded by the prosecution that

they were valuable in the circumstances of the case, and in his submission they ought to

have attracted a greater level of discount.

40. In exchanges with the bench counsel for the appellant conceded that notwithstanding that

the pleas were considered valuable, it could not be said that they merited the highest.

level of discount. Nevertheless, he still maintained that they should have attracted more

discount than was in fact afforded.

41. We cannot agree. The pleas, which were the only mitigating factor put forward of any

substance, were rewarded by a 20% discount. We consider that this was appropriate in

the circumstances of the case.

42. We also disagree with the submission that there was an unjustified breach of the parity

principle. We are satisfied that there was a clear basis for differentiating this case from

the cases of Mr O’Rourke and Mr Crowley. This appellant was clearly in overall control of

the operation.

The Sentence on Bill No 158/17

43. The main complaint here was with the headline sentence of 15 years. It was contended

that this was disproportionate to a significant extent, and out of kilter with similar

offences even taking into account the serious aggravating circumstances of this case. The

Court was referred to its recent decision in The People (DPP) v Sarsfield in illustration of

the point.

Page 9 ⇓

44. We have no hesitation in saying that we agree that the 15-year headline sentence was

disproportionate to the gravity of the offences, and substantially so. If the principal

aggravating factors of the offences being committed while on bail, the brazenness of the

circumstances of their commission, their commission in the context of the appellant

having relevant previous conviction were to be ignored in the first instance, the

appropriate headline sentence, based on the intrinsic gravity of the un-aggravated

offence, would be in region of 7 years. The effect of the aggravation would certainly be to

elevate the gravity somewhat, but it would certainly not operate to more than double it.

We would assess the cumulative aggravation as increasing the intrinsic gravity of the

offence by 30%, but no more than that. That would have indicated a headline sentence of

nine years rather than 15 years. There was a clear error of principle here, and we so find.

45. In the circumstances we must quash the sentence imposed by the Court below and

proceed to re-sentence. This also has implications for the overall sentence in

circumstances where there is a requirement to impose consecutive sentence.

46. In relation to Bill No 158/17 we will nominate a headline sentence of 9 years. On the

mitigation side, the appellant was entitled to a discount the order of a third, which would

suggest a net sentence for these offences, before any aggregation, should be one of six

years.

Consecutivity

47. A straight aggregation of the net sentences of eight years on Bill No 83/17 and that of six

years on Bill No 158/17 gives a cumulative sentence of fourteen years. Having stood back

and considered the overall proportionality of that sentence we are prepared to reduce the

figure of fourteen years to thirteen years in application of the totality principle.

Accordingly, the six year net sentence on Bill No 158/17 will be reduced to five years to

give effect to this.

48. We agree with the judge at first instance that there was an insufficient evidential basis in

the circumstances of this case for suspending any portion of the cumulative overall

sentence.

49. The appeal is allowed.

Result: Allow and Vary