The Court of Criminal Appeal refused David Timmons’s application to challenge his eight-year prison sentence for conspiracy to possess cocaine for sale or supply. It found no error in principle by the sentencing judge and said the evidence showed Timmons had a greater role in organising the transaction than two co-accused who received shorter sentences.
Timmons was convicted on 12 December 2008 after pleading not guilty. Judge Ryan sentenced him on 28 January 2009. His appeal against conviction had been refused. A later application to add a ground concerning a search warrant was also refused on 14 January 2013. The present judgment, delivered on 8 March 2013, addresses the sentence appeal.
The court recounted evidence that on 14 September 2006 Timmons drove both co-accused, identified as B.T. and J.G., to locations around Lusk. Prosecut prosecution witnesses said he and B.T. met a lorry before the vehicles went to a furniture shop car park. Timmons drove away before an exchange of drugs and money involving the men from the lorry, B.T. and J.G. Gardaí arrested four men at the car park and arrested Timmons about 20 minutes later. They recovered cocaine packages weighing about 8½ kilograms, with a stated street value approaching €600,000, and about €85,000 in cash.
Timmons argued that his sentence was excessive compared with the five-year and four-year terms imposed on B.T. and J.G. The court noted that both had pleaded guilty and that the evidence at Timmons’s trial showed a different degree of involvement. The jury rejected his defence that he had innocently given lifts without knowing of criminal activity. The appeal court said the sentencing judge could conclude that Timmons had played a more central role, and that comparing co-accused was a comparison of like with like only where their circumstances were similar.
The sentencing judge had heard mitigation including Timmons’s age, family circumstances, education, previous convictions and the impact of custody on his partner and young children. The appeal court also noted aggravating factors, including the offence, the quantity of drugs and 22 previous convictions, two of them for summary offences under section 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
The court concluded that the eight-year term was not shown to be outside the appropriate range or to reflect an error in principle. It therefore refused the application. The judgment does not alter the sentence.