The Court of Criminal Appeal yesterday rejected a claim by the DPP that a four-year suspended sentence imposed on a "naïve" drug courier from South Africa was unduly lenient. The man is of limited intellectual ability and has a reading age of 10.
The three-judge court also held that the trial judge was entitled, in the circumstances of the case, to impose a condition on the suspension of the man's sentence to the effect that he should leave Ireland and return to South Africa.
It rejected the DPP's argument that this encroached on the deportation powers of the Minister for Justice and said there was no consequence of forcible removal from the State.
The requirement to leave the State was a conditional adjunct to the suspended sentence which the trial court had already imposed. It noted the man intended to return to South Africa in any case as soon as he could.
However, the imposition by the trial judge of an open-ended condition that the man should never return to Ireland was not, in principle, good practice, it added.
Mr Justice Murray, sitting with Mr Justice Kelly and Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan, was giving judgment dismissing the DPP's appeal against the sentence imposed on Grant Alexiou (27).
Alexiou was arrested at Dublin Airport with around €77,000 worth of cannabis after arriving from Johannesburg. He was arrested after he approached a customs officer and asked him where the exit was.
He co-operated fully with gardaí and pleaded guilty to having the drug for sale or supply.
On July 9th, 2002, he received a four-year sentence, suspended on conditions including a bond to keep the peace for four years and to leave Ireland immediately and not return except for the purposes of any appeal.
In arguing that the sentence was unduly lenient, the DPP had said the Misuse of Drugs Act provided for a minimum 10-year sentence where the value of the drugs was more than €12,697, unless the trial judge was satisfied there were exceptional circumstances.
He argued that the suspended four-year sentence did not reflect the seriousness of the crime.
While stressing the offence of dealing in drugs was a grave offence normally warranting a substantial jail sentence, Mr Justice Murray said the Court of Criminal Appeal was satisfied the trial judge had approached the issue of sentencing with meticulous care, taking into account the grave nature of the offence and the circumstances of Alexiou.
The trial judge had taken into account the severe effect on Alexiou of six months in jail here, given his low intellectual capacity to cope with being in a foreign country, cut off from his family and anybody he knew.
Although a severe sanction which marked the gravity of an offence should be a deterrent to others, deterrence was never a basis for punishing an accused for crimes which may have been, or may be, committed by others, Mr Justice Murray added.