Only 4% of dealers get 10-year jail terms

Only 4% of offenders convicted of large-scale drug dealing get the mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years. Many get suspended sentences.

According to figures released by the Courts Service, under a freedom of information request, judges are ignoring mandatory sentencing legislation introduced in 1999 to combat an upsurge in organised crime.

Section 15(a) of The Criminal Justice Act, 1999, introduced the offence of possession of drugs, for sale or supply, with a value of more than €13,000. The law set a minimum sentence of 10 years’ jail, although judges could impose lesser sentences in cases involving “exceptional and specific circumstances”.

The law targeted organised crime with heavier sentences for those involved in the higher levels of the criminal drugs trade. There were 401 of these sentences in 2012 and 2013 (the latest period for which data is available). 384 were judged to involve “exceptional and specific circumstances”, resulting in jail terms of less than 10 years.

Only 17 people — or one in 20 convicted — were given effective jail terms of 10 years. The highest sentence was 18 years, in 2012. No one received the maximum term of life in prison. For example, Dundalk Circuit Criminal Court imposed the Probation Act on an offender, meaning no jail time or criminal record. That was the most lenient of the sentences

Nearly 40%, or 153, of those sentenced under the section were given suspended sentences, including five accused whose 10-year sentences were suspended. In four cases, involving foreigners caught here with large amounts of drugs, judges ordered the offenders be deported on completion of their sentences.

Judges are also less likely to implement Section 15(a)’s provisions, instead relying on the “exceptional and specific circumstances” provision. In 2007, 24% of offenders received 10-year sentences. By 2011, this had dropped to 7%.

“Exceptional and specific circumstances” include the offender pleading guilty and/or assisting gardaí.

In 2013, the Law Reform Commission reported that the drugs trade had “adapted” to the new sentencing regime “by using expendable couriers to hold and transport drugs”. “These relatively low-level offenders, rather than those at the top of the illegal drugs trade, are being apprehended and dealt with under the presumptive regime,” the report read. The commission recommended that the mandatory minimum sentencing should be abandoned for drugs crimes and not extended to other offences.

In 2011, then justice minister Alan Shatter said mandatory sentencing for serious drug offences had an “undoubted intuitive appeal”, but that it resulted in low-level mules and couriers going to prison instead of the “kingpins”. He said other jurisdictions, in the US and in Australia, had retreated from mandatory sentencing.

Barrister Fergal Foley has prosecuted many Section 15(a) cases. He says the act is “a laughing stock” and is ignored by judges.

Referring to the use of the “exceptional and specific circumstances” clause, Mr Foley joked: “If you plead guilty and you don’t actually assault the guards during the interview, that is judged as co-operation. The act is a laughing stock.”

When asked about an overhaul of the mandatory sentencing regime, a Department of Justice and Equality spokesman said it will act on several findings in last year’s ‘Review of Penal Policy’, which recommended against mandatory drug sentences.

“Minister (Frances) Fitzgerald has consistently expressed her view that serious and serial offenders must continue to be imprisoned,” the department said. The spokesman pointed to the upcoming Criminal Justice (Burglary of Dwellings) Bill, which seeks mandatory consecutive sentencing for repeat burglary offences. However, the bill proposes to leave it up to judges whether or not to make these consecutive sentences custodial.