The Court of Appeal has dismissed Alison Cleary’s appeal against a three-year prison sentence for possessing cocaine for supply, finding no error of principle that would justify reducing the term.
The court, in an ex tempore judgment delivered by Mr Justice Mahon on 5 December 2016, said the sentence was appropriate. The appeal concerned sentence only: Cleary had pleaded guilty at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court on 1 June 2016 to one count under section 15A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977. She was sentenced on 29 July 2016 to three years’ imprisonment from that date.
The judgment said gardaí searched the family home at 15 Bewley Lawns, Lucan, under warrant on 4 February 2015. Nothing was found in the first search. A later search that day found 1.48kg of cocaine in an upstairs bedroom, with a stated street value of €128,891. Cleary admitted responsibility during two interviews at Ronanstown garda station.
Her appeal argued that the sentencing judge had not given sufficient weight to mitigation, including a neuropsychologist’s letter and the guilty plea, and had wrongly found no exceptional circumstances. It also challenged the refusal to adjourn so she could continue probation-related urinalysis and argued the sentence was excessive. Her counsel cited her guilty plea, her age of 20 at the time of the offence, lack of previous convictions and claimed minor role.
The Court of Appeal reviewed evidence of significant health and behavioural difficulties during Cleary’s teenage years, including neurosurgery when she was 14, as well as material about addiction treatment and probation supervision. It said there was no compelling evidence that her medical history impaired her ability to distinguish right from wrong or understand the seriousness of her conduct.
The court said the sentencing judge had correctly found exceptional circumstances allowing a sentence below the statutory presumptive minimum of ten years. That did not lessen the seriousness of the offence or remove the need for an appropriate custodial sentence, it said. Given the value of the drugs, the three-year term was “not a harsh sentence by any means”.
The appeal was dismissed. The court did not reduce or otherwise alter the sentence.