The Court of Appeal has dismissed Eugene Hayes’s appeal against the severity of a four-year sentence for permitting the unlawful cultivation of cannabis plants on premises at Lisheen Mine, Thurles.
The judgment, delivered ex tempore by Mr Justice Edwards on 17 July 2017, upheld the sentence imposed by Nenagh Circuit Criminal Court. The sentence was to run consecutively to the term Hayes was already serving, with the final two years suspended on conditions. The appeal court said the sentence could not be backdated because the offence was committed while Hayes was on bail and the sentence had to be consecutive.
A search in March 2013 found a grow house in a shed at the back of Hayes’s home. Garda evidence described 48 growing stations with separate heating and plumbing, capacity for 30 additional young plants, and 10 cannabis plants at an early stage of growth. The Garda who gave evidence estimated the value of what was growing at about €8,000. The judgment also records evidence of a previous harvest.
Hayes admitted during Garda interviews that he had agreed with two men, contacted through DoneDeal.ie, that they could use his facilities to grow cannabis. The Gardaí were told he expected €5,000 to €6,000 several months later. A probation report, received in evidence, recorded a different account from Hayes: that he received €250 a month in rent and two separate lump sums of €8,000. One of the men was also charged in connection with the raid but had since left the jurisdiction, the sentencing court was told.
On appeal, Hayes argued that the offence was less serious than actual cultivation, that the operation was modest in scale, and that the sentencing judge had given too little weight to his guilty plea, co-operation, remorse, health problems and financial hardship. The prosecution argued that the operation was commercial and that a sentence should deter people from knowingly allowing premises to be used for cannabis cultivation.
The appeal court agreed that the sentencing judge had been wrong to treat Hayes’s previous convictions for sexual offences and his assessed moderate risk of reoffending as aggravating his culpability. It said those errors had only minimal influence on the assessment of the case. The court accepted that the operation was professional and commercial in character and upheld its placement at the lower end of the middle range of seriousness.
It also found that suspending half of the four-year sentence sufficiently reflected the mitigation. The appeal against severity was dismissed.