The Court of Appeal has dismissed Terry O’Donoghue’s appeal against a ten-year sentence for unlawful possession of cannabis for supply, leaving a seven-year custodial term in place. The final three years were suspended on conditions.
The appeal, heard by Sheehan, Mahon and Edwards JJ., focused on whether the sentencing judge gave sufficient weight to mitigating circumstances when deciding how much of the sentence to suspend. The court found the sentence reasonable and appropriate and identified no error of principle. It did not alter the sentence.
O’Donoghue was convicted at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court on 10 December 2013 after pleading guilty to the offence. He was sentenced on 7 April 2014. The Court of Appeal said the ten-year headline term was appropriate given that the drugs involved had a total value of just over €2 million.
The offending described in the judgment arose from an intelligence-led operation in February 2013. On 27 February, National Drugs Unit officers watched O’Donoghue collect black sacks from a lock-up at Cookstown Enterprise Centre in Tallaght. He drove to a slip road off the N7, where a handover took place. The recipient was later stopped and just under 10kg of cannabis, valued at €199,584, was seized.
The surveillance continued the next day. Officers saw O’Donoghue return to the lock-up and take away more sacks. A further handover took place at Castlewarden, Staffan, in County Kildare. The recipient was later stopped and 30kg of cannabis, valued at €601,440, was seized. O’Donoghue was also stopped and arrested. A search of the lock-up found 64.4kg of cannabis, valued at €1.29 million, concealed in boxes stacked on pallets.
The court noted O’Donoghue’s guilty plea, admissions and co-operation, and that he did not own the drugs. It also referred to his lack of previous convictions, difficult family circumstances, the recent deaths of his wife and daughter, resulting alcohol abuse, and a low risk of reoffending. However, it said his role remained crucial to what the sentencing judge had described as a sophisticated operation.
The sentencing judge had departed from the prescribed ten-year mandatory minimum because of exceptional mitigating factors. The Court of Appeal said it did not take issue with that decision. It dismissed the appeal.