Director of Public Prosecutions v Safonov [2019] IECA 281 (21 October 2019)

BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

Judgment of the Court (ex tempore) delivered on the 21st day of October 2019 by Mr.

1. This is an appeal against severity of sentence. The appellant pleaded guilty to counts one

and two on an indictment for charging offences contrary to the Misuse of Drugs Acts,

1977 as amended being possession for the purpose of sale or supply of, and possession I

of a controlled drug; and a charge of cultivation was also taken into account. A nolle

prosequi was entered in respect of an offence under s.15A of the same Act, as inserted.

2. Evidence of the offence was given by Detective Garda Philip O’Sullivan who said that he

had carried out surveillance at Bourlum Wood, Green Road, County Carlow. The premises

had sheeting on one window to control lighting and blinds were drawn on most windows.

A search warrant was obtained and on entry into the premises pursuant to it a strong

smell of cannabis was noticed. The appellant was found wearing gardening gloves. A

phone and a list of items used for growing cannabis were found on the property.

3. Evidence was given of the layout of the house and of the equipment put in place to

ensure that the smell of cannabis would go through the roof of the house or from the top

of the house and not onto the street. There were two grow tents and the witness

believed that the cannabis on one shelf was ready for bagging. Garda O’Sullivan

described the scene as “a very professional very methodical set-up”. In the course of the

investigation, Detective Sergeant O’Meara had established that certain dried or harvested

cannabis to the extent of 4.616 kilograms would have had a value of €92,320. In

addition, some eighty-three plants were valued at a total sum of €66,400. Thus the

amount involved, either in respect of harvested or growing cannabis was €158,320.

4. The appellant gave evidence to the effect that he did not grow the cannabis for sale. He

expressed remorse for the offence and said he was cultivating it for scientific reasons in

5. The trial judge determined that the appropriate headline sentence, absent a plea of guilty

or mitigation was one of fifteen years. Reducing that to eleven years due to the plea of

guilty, and further reducing it on the basis of the mitigation present she acknowledged

testimonials that showed Mr Safonov was an exemplary prisoner and was doing well in his

education. She accepted that he was trying to keep his activities secret, and that he was

not a scientist. The appellant had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and saved the

State the cost of what could have been a complex trial, which was also acknowledged and

taken into account. He had no previous convictions. He had agreed to the disposal of the

cannabis and he had engaged with the interview process to the extent that he had

6. The aggravating factors were of course the seriousness of the offence and the appellant’s

activities in what was described as a huge operation; the appellant being at the top of the

chain so to speak, to use the judge’s term. The appellant is a Lithuanian national, he has

four children, he has no previous convictions but was previously known to the Lithuanian

authorities for minor matters as elicited by defence counsel. The Probation Report stated

he was at low risk of reoffending. A letter from the chaplain’s office in Cloverhill Prison

showed that he was highly regarded and that the chaplain was of the opinion that he was

sincere and remorseful. He registered with the educational centre in Cloverhill and

evidence was tendered in respect of his progress there. He had also engaged in a course

for the purpose of learning English and studies in music, art and computers. He

apparently had made slow but steady progress in all the courses he had attended.

7. Counsel for the appellant submits that the trial judge erred in imposing a sentence of

imprisonment that was excessive in all of the circumstances and places particular

emphasis on the identified headline or pre-mitigation sentence which she says was far too

severe, giving rise to an ultimate sentence which was excessive and out of line with a

8. The appellant has referred to a number of authorities and ultimately submits, and the

respondent submits in response, that the sentencing court had clear regard to the

mitigating factors, reducing the headline sentence by over fifty percent for them.

9. It was submitted further by the respondent that the judge had not erred in imposing the

relevant custodial sentence; that the sentence was proportionate having regard to the

very serious nature of the offence, the personal circumstances of the appellant, and that

the sentence was within the range of sentences open to the Court.

10. What distinguishes this case from many of the other cases which come before this Court

is that in many such cases, those involved are in a menial or a subservient position.

However, we take the view that there was an error in principle, but the discount

nonetheless for mitigation was to an ultimate sentence of less than half of the starting

point. Whilst we think accordingly that the headline sentence was too high and gave rise

to an error of principle. We think that the reduction or discount of some eight years was

over-generous. We think that if one were to approach the matter on the basis of a pre-

mitigation sentence of ten to twelve years it would have been appropriate to afford a

reduction having regard to all mitigating factors, and we regard this at a relatively

generous one of in to, in or about seven years, perhaps slightly more, perhaps slightly

less, so that we cannot say that even if there was an error the ultimate conclusion of the

11. The sentence was therefore within the available range, and in all of the circumstances we

accordingly dismiss this appeal.

Result: Dismiss

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Irish Court of Appeal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Irish Court of Appeal >> Director of Public Prosecutions v Safonov [2019] IECA 281 (21 October 2019) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECA/2019/2019IECA281.html Cite as: [2019] IECA 281

Irish Court of Appeal