The Court of Appeal has dismissed Peter Hanley’s appeal against the severity of an eight-year sentence for possessing cocaine, cannabis and cannabis resin worth at least €13,000 for sale or supply.
Hanley pleaded guilty in Cork Circuit Criminal Court on 6 February 2017. He was sentenced on 28 June that year to eight years in prison, with the final two years suspended on conditions including keeping the peace and complying with Probation Service directions for two years after release. The appeal concerned the sentence’s severity. The Court of Appeal upheld it.
The sentencing court heard that gardaí stopped Hanley and a co-accused after they left an address in Cork on 11 December 2015. Cannabis was found in their car. A follow-up search at the address found more cannabis, cocaine and cannabis resin, with a total stated street value of €42,414. Hanley admitted in interview that the drugs were in his possession and control and said he was involved in their sale and supply to pay a drug debt. His co-accused said the drugs belonged to him, but gardaí did not believe that account.
The Court of Appeal noted that Hanley’s co-accused had received a six-year sentence, with the final three years suspended. It found the difference between the sentences justified by Hanley’s more significant role and a previous conviction for a relevant drug offence. The court also noted Hanley’s early guilty plea and cooperation, while recording his appeal arguments about his personal adversity, addiction, remorse and the absence of monetary gain.
A probation report described Hanley as having poor insight into his offending and substance misuse, and no constructive plan to manage in the community. It assessed him as at the high end of moderate risk of reoffending. The appeal court said there was no evidence of active participation in a treatment programme or a planned programme, clear urinalysis results, or a release plan. It also noted that risk factors identified in the report had not been addressed.
The court found that the sentencing judge had full regard to Hanley’s personal circumstances and that the two-year suspension provided a sufficient allowance for mitigation and rehabilitation within the judge’s sentencing discretion. It found no error of principle and dismissed the appeal.