Appeal court cuts Holland's twenty-year drugs term by 8 years

A 20-year sentence imposed on Patrick Eugene "Dutchy" Holland, one of the longest ever imposed on drugs charges, was reduced …

A 20-year sentence imposed on Patrick Eugene "Dutchy" Holland, one of the longest ever imposed on drugs charges, was reduced to 12 years by the Court of Criminal Appeal yesterday.

The three-judge court said there was a certain unfortunate aspect to Holland's trial at the Special Criminal Court in that references were made during it to murder and other crimes.

During Holland's trial on a charge of possession of cannabis the garda who arrested him stated her belief that he was the man who shot dead the journalist Veronica Guerin at Naas Road, Clondalkin, Dublin, on June 26th, 1996.

The court reduced Holland's 20-year sentence to 12 years but rejected his appeal against conviction.

READ MORE

The 20-year sentence was imposed on Holland (58), a native of Dublin with an address at Brittas Bay, Co Wicklow, in November last year. He was convicted of possession of cannabis for the purposes of sale or supply within the State on a date unknown between October 1st, 1995, and October 6th, 1996.

Giving judgment yesterday on the sentence aspect of the case, Mr Justice Barrington, who sat with Mr Justice Kinlen and Mr Justice O'Higgins, said the maximum sentence that could be imposed under the relevant section of the Misuse of Drugs Act was life imprisonment, while Holland had been sentenced to 20 years.

The judge said Holland had a bad record. It was while he was on temporary release from prison that the crimes which were the subject of his present conviction were committed.

Holland was a professional criminal, the judge said. It was proper that an appropriate heavy sentence should be imposed on him in relation to the crimes he had committed, possession of drugs for the purpose of sale.

The trial court put a value of £100,000 on the drugs involved, although it was not suggested that Holland's share of the proceeds in relation to it was anything comparable to that figure.

There was a certain unfortunate aspect of the trial in that references were made during it to murder and other crimes. The purpose of this evidence apparently was to illustrate that the accused was not a person who committed a once-off offence but was in fact a professional criminal committed to a life of crime.

It was important to emphasise that Holland was convicted of one offence only, possession of a controlled drug, cannabis.

Mr Justice Barrington said there were certain facts about the sentence which caused the court some unease. Holland was aged 58 at date of sentence. The maximum sentence under the section was life. Holland had been sentenced to 20 years. In the circumstances of the accused, and counsel for the DPP had fairly conceded so, that must be very similar to life imprisonment.

The court thought the sentence should be reduced from 20 years to 12, to date from the date of arrest, the judge said.

Earlier, giving judgment on the application for leave to appeal against conviction, Mr Justice

Barrington said it appeared to turn on two or maybe three points of law. One arose out of the peculiar fact that the accused was arrested on April, 9th 1997, while his then solicitor, Mr James Orange, was also arrested, so that Holland lost the advice of his chosen solicitor at a critical time. That had warranted, and had received, investigation at the trial.

It was clear that under those difficult circumstances, two other solicitors had done all they could to protect the interests of Holland. In the circumstances of the case, this led the accused man's side to believe that the arrest of Mr Orange was part of what they called a charade.

They believed they were confirmed in their suspicion of some form of conspiracy on the part of the gardai by the fact that he lost the services of his chosen solicitor and that no electronic recording was made of an interview with the accused in spite of provisions of the Criminal Justice Act.

Rejecting the appeal against conviction, Mr Justice Barrington said it appeared that the three experienced judges of the Special Criminal Court were entitled to come to the conclusion they had and the Court of Criminal Appeal did not see how it could interfere with it.