A Supreme Court judge has indicated the courts will not be influenced by "strident and repeated public comments" in recent weeks criticising judges for not always imposing the mandatory sentence in drug supply cases.
Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman stressed the duty of judges was to decide individual cases impartially in accordance with the Constitution and the law and without regard to expressions of opinion, except from the DPP and the sentenced person.
He noted the DPP is entitled to seek a review of any sentences which he considers unduly lenient. Of 23 such reviews lodged by the DPP between 2002 and 2005, 13 were successful and three awaited hearing. Such figures did not indicate a "malfunction" of the sentencing courts.
The DPP had not sought to review any sentence of more than six years and had applied to review just one six-year sentence, the judge added.
He also said the system of mandatory sentencing for drugs supply involves "a drastic alteration" of the principles of sentencing as they formerly applied.
The right of appeal, whether by an accused or the prosecutor, was an essential safeguard against undue leniency or undue severity and was especially necessary in dealing with "a revolutionary alteration" of the principles of sentencing, he added.
The judge was presiding at the Court of Criminal Appeal when dismissing the appeal of Andrew Dermody (24), Tullow Road, Carlow, against the severity of a seven-year sentence imposed on him for having drugs for supply.
In deciding Dermody's case, the court paid "no attention whatever" to the recent comments, Mr Justice Hardiman stressed.
Dermody had pleaded guilty at Carlow Circuit Criminal Court to having cocaine, with an estimated street value of €21,000, for supply on April 21st, 2004.
Mr Justice Hardiman said it would be unrealistic for the court to ignore the fact that, in the couple of weeks immediately preceding the hearing of the appeal, strident and repeated public comments from more than one source had criticised the judicial interpretation of the law providing that a court could impose, in exceptional and specific circumstances, a sentence less than the mandatory 10 years for drug supply offences.
"Since these comments have been given wide and excited coverage in the media, it is perhaps appropriate in a case arising so soon after these repeated comments were made to say, in deciding this case, the court pays the comments in question no attention whatever," Mr Justice Hardiman said.
The duty of judges was to decide individual cases impartially in accordance with the Constitution and the laws, and without regard to expressions of opinion from any source other than the DPP as prosecutor and applicant as the person on whom sentence was imposed.
The position of the DPP in the Dermody case was that he was not seeking to have the sentence increased and did not consider it to be unduly lenient. The DPP also stated that a plea of guilty must have some weight in all cases, even those which might appear on their face at least to be open and shut.
The judge said little attention had been devoted to that feature of the sentencing regime under which the DPP could seek to have a sentence reviewed by the Court of Criminal Appeal if he considered it to be unduly lenient. This had not happened in the Dermody case.
The judge said Dermody had been rather fortunate. In his case, the reduction of three years in prison in the mandatory minimum sentence was, in the court's opinion, the largest possible reduction which could be justified having regard to the legislation.
He said there was no feature in Dermody's case which suggested an error of principle in not further reducing the sentence.