Judgment: 2015-11-09 · Court archive

Court of Appeal upholds seven-year sentence for €580,000 Dublin cannabis haul

Court of Appeal ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • David Gill (Appellant)
What

Court of Appeal upholds seven-year sentence for €580,000 Dublin cannabis haul

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Kylemore Road
  • Dale Road
  • Dublin Circuit Criminal Court
  • Court of Appeal
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The Court of Appeal disagreed. It held that the sentencing judge had properly found “exceptional and specific circumstances”, the statutory test allowing a court to impose less than the 10-year minimum sentence normally associated with a section 15A offence.

The Court of Appeal has upheld a seven-year prison sentence imposed on David Gill after Gardaí recovered cannabis worth about €580,000 during an operation in Dublin.

Gill pleaded guilty at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court to possession of a controlled drug for the purpose of supply under section 15A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977. He was sentenced on July 29, 2014.

The case arose from a Garda surveillance operation on August 22, 2013. Gill was stopped in a white van on Kylemore Road, where Gardaí found about 8.5kg of cannabis herb valued at €171,500. A subsequent search of a lock-up on Dale Road uncovered about 19.5kg of cannabis resin valued at €389,500. Gardaí also found €30,500 hidden in a pool table at Gill’s home.

Gill immediately cooperated and accepted that the cash was drug-sale proceeds. Gardaí accepted that neither the drugs nor the money belonged to him and that he was afraid of the third party who owned them. The judgment records that Gill became involved for financial reasons.

He had no previous convictions, a generally good employment history and strong family and community ties. His defence argued that these factors, along with his guilty plea and low risk of reoffending, had not been given enough weight.

The Court of Appeal disagreed. It held that the sentencing judge had properly found “exceptional and specific circumstances”, the statutory test allowing a court to impose less than the 10-year minimum sentence normally associated with a section 15A offence.

The appeal court assessed the appropriate sentence before mitigation at about 10 to 11 years. Against that, the seven-year term amounted to a reduction of three to four years.

The court said that discount adequately reflected Gill’s substantial mitigation. Although seven years was possibly at the upper end of the appropriate range, it was not excessive and disclosed no error of principle.

The sentence appeal was therefore dismissed.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review