The Court of Appeal has upheld an eight-year prison sentence imposed on Paul Carew for three money-laundering offences, dismissing his appeal against the severity of the sentence.
The appeal concerned a global sentence imposed by Dublin Circuit Criminal Court in March 2018. The three matters included two later offences and the re-entry of a three-year suspended sentence imposed in 2016 for an earlier money-laundering offence. The Court of Appeal said all three offences involved money laundering and that the later two were committed while the suspended sentence was in force. The eight-year term was backdated to 24 June 2017, when he was first taken into custody.
The offences before the sentencing court involved €191,160 found in bags recovered from a vehicle in August 2016, and €351,000 recovered from a box in a van in June 2017. Carew had pleaded guilty to both offences. The appeal judgment records that the sentencing judge considered a headline sentence of nine to ten years for the two later offences before imposing eight years globally, with no order activating the suspended sentence.
Carew argued that the sentence was excessive and that the court had given insufficient weight to his personal circumstances, guilty pleas, work record, family responsibilities and claimed duress. His counsel had submitted that he acted as a courier under pressure and did not know the contents of the packages. The DPP argued that he provided a vital service to the criminal group.
The Court of Appeal rejected the claim that his role was limited, pointing to uncontested evidence that he was trusted and highly involved, and that his haulage experience and use of vehicles with concealed compartments were important to the group’s operations. It also found the duress argument was not made out, noting that he had opportunities after the first offence to seek help from law enforcement.
The court said the sentencing judge had considered the mitigating factors, including family circumstances and the guilty pleas. It found the earlier wholly suspended sentence had not deterred further offending, and concluded that suspending any part of the new sentence would have been inappropriate. The court held that the global sentence was properly constructed and proportionate, and dismissed the appeal, affirming the sentencing order.