[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Irish Court of Criminal Appeal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Irish Court of Criminal Appeal >> Mungon & Anor, D.P.P. (People) v. [2008] IECCA 117 (31 July 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECCA/2008/2008_IECCA_117.html Cite as: [2008] IECCA 117

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

241/07 & 145/08

Finnegan J.

Budd J.

Herbert J.

THE PEOPLE (AT THE SUIT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS)

.v.

JENNIFER MUNGON & RASHEED LAWAL

APPLICANTS

Judgment of the Court (ex tempore) delivered on the 31s' day of July 2008 by Finnegan J.

The applicants here were co-accuseds. They were dealt with together in the Circuit Court while separately represented, and again here their applications for leave to appeal against sentence are linked although they are separately represented.

The charges against them, in Ms. Mungon's case are two counts of possession of drugs contrary to section 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 and in Mr. Lawal's case one count of possession of drugs contrary to section 15 of the Act of 1977. In Ms. Mungon's case there was cocaine which in effect is the same cocaine involved in the charge against Mr. Lawal with a value of approximately €5,500. In addition Ms. Mungon had possession of some cannabis with a value of €2,000.

The drugs were found in an apartment which was let to Ms. Mungon and her explanation is that she had permitted her apartment to be used to mind drugs for both Mr. Lawal but also for Mr. Muritala Ajayi who was her neighbour in the adjoining apartment. It would appear that she did not act for money but did out of friendship:


 


-2-

that is perhaps the best way to describe it. Mr. Lawal arrived at the apartments when they were being searched. Both of the applicants co-operated to some extent with the Gardai but there was not full co-operation. Both of them pleaded guilty. There is one feature of the case, that is that Mr. Muritala Ajayi, who it would appear was involved in storing drugs in Ms. Mungon's apartment was charged with possession of a very small quantity of drugs in the District Court and did not receive a custodial sentence. On the account of Ms. Mungon he was to a considerable extent the reason for her becoming involved in storing drugs which led her to being charged and convicted.
The real concern which the court has to address _ton this appeal is consistency or proportionality between three persons who were involved in the circumstances giving rise to the charges against these two applicants. The added difficulty is that one of the persons who appears to have been centrally involved is not before this court. It is a principle of sentencing that there should be proportionality between co-accuseds. Someone sentenced by a court should not feel aggrieved because someone with equal or greater culpability has received a significantly lesser sentence or no sentence at all. That circumstance is the only matter that can be urged on this appeal.

In relation to Ms. Mungon she was born in 1983, she has been living in Ireland since 2002. She attended secondary school here, took her Leaving Certificate and was successful and while not working at the time of her arrest by the date of the trial she was employed. Her probation report indicates that she is at a low risk of re-offending.

In relation to Mr. Lawal, he has no previous convictions. He is a young man. He was at the date of sentence very recently married and had one young child then aged seven months. He is married to an electrical engineer. He appears himself to have been committed to pursuing education to advance himself. He was attending the


 


-3-

Dublin Business School pursuing a degree in accountancy and at the same time it would appear he was engaged in part-time employment. Again the probation report discloses that he does not represent a significant risk of re-offending.

Having said all this, these are serious offences. The maximum sentence is one of life imprisonment. The value of drugs if it was somewhat higher would have resulted in the mandatory sentence under section 15A of the Act as amended applying.

However the court takes into account an apparent discrepancy between the manner in which bpth of these applicants were treated as between themselves and the manner in which they were treated, each of them individually, as against Mr. Muritala Ajayi.

In these circumstances the court has decided that there is a lack of proportionality between the sentences involved and in those circumstances an error of principle which this court proposes to address.

In relation to Ms. Mungon the court is satisfied that the sentence of three years imposed upon her having regard to the seriousness of the offence, is an appropriate sentence, but taking into account her personal circumstances which are very briefly outlined above and taking into account the discrepancy between the sentence which was imposed upon her and that imposed on Mr. Muritala Ajayi the court proposes to suspend the last two years of the sentence imposed upon her.

In relation to Mr. Lawal the court again takes the view that proportionality is the main factor to be considered. The sentence was, if anything, taken in isolation somewhat light. However the same situation applies here as applies in relation to Ms. Mungon. In those circumstances the court proposes to take into account, in Mr. Lawal's case the possibility that he will rehabilitate himself while in custody and it


 


-4-

takes some confidence in adopting this view from the probation report. What the court proposes to do is to hold forth some light for Mr. Lawal at the end of the tunnel but to mark the seriousness of the offence it proposes to increase the sentence imposed upon him to a sentence of four years imprisonment but to suspend the last two years of that term, upon him entering into a bond to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years following his release from prison.

The court will treat the application for leave as the hearing of the appeal. The suspension in Ms. Mungon's case is also to be on the terms that she will keep the peace and be good behaviour for a peripd of one year from her release from prison. They can enter into their bonds before the Governor, each of them in their own bond of €50.

DPP v Mungon & Lawal