The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against the severity of a six-year sentence imposed on a man who transferred two packs of cocaine between vehicles. The sentence included a three-year suspended portion, and the court held it was within the range open to the sentencing judge.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Hedigan on 28 April 2017, concerned an offence under section 15A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977. The appellant had pleaded guilty on 21 May 2015. Dundalk Circuit Criminal Court sentenced him on 29 January 2016, suspending the final three years on conditions that included a €200 bond and good behaviour for specified periods.
The Court of Appeal judgment said that on 4 April 2014, surveillance showed a vehicle driven by co-accused O’Donoghue travelling to Bessexwell Lane, where co-accused Tully put a pink plastic bag into it. At the car park of the Monasterboice Inn, the appellant moved two packs from that vehicle’s boot to the boot of a second vehicle occupied by co-accused Millen. The second vehicle was later stopped on a motorway. The packs contained cocaine weighing 1,987.478 grams, valued at €139,123.46.
The judgment said a search of the appellant’s home the next day found nothing of evidential value. He attended a Garda station on 7 April, was arrested, and cooperated with the investigation, making admissions regarded as materially helpful. Gardaí were satisfied that he knew at most that the packs contained cannabis, that he received no financial benefit and did not know the drugs’ value or the scale of the operation. The judgment also recorded that he took no steps to disassociate himself.
At sentence, the judge found exceptional specific circumstances that made the statutory minimum 10-year sentence unjust in the case. He treated the seriousness of the offence and the appellant’s role as an important link or conduit in moving a substantial quantity of drugs as aggravating factors. Mitigation included the guilty plea, cooperation, remorse, rehabilitation efforts, lack of drug-related convictions and low assessed risk of reoffending. The appellant had 50 road traffic convictions, which the sentencing judge treated as neutral.
On appeal, the appellant argued that the judge had not given sufficient weight to his personal circumstances and mitigation. The respondent argued that he could have refused to handle the bag and that deterrence of casual couriers was important.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the sentencing judge had applied the relevant principles, considered deterrence and rehabilitation, and explained why the minimum sentence would be unjust. It found no error of principle and dismissed the appeal, leaving the sentence and suspension in place.