The Court of Appeal has quashed Darren Coakley’s sentence for unlawful possession of controlled drugs for sale or supply and imposed two years’ imprisonment, suspending the final 12 months subject to conditions.
The court delivered its judgment on 3 December 2018, allowing the sentence appeal to a limited extent. It ordered that Coakley enter a €100 bond to keep the peace and be of good behaviour during the balance of his time in custody and for 12 months after release. He must not use cannabis or possess any controlled drug, and must comply with Probation and Welfare Service directions, including any concerning medical treatment or urinalysis.
Coakley had been sentenced in Carlow Circuit Criminal Court on 6 July 2018 after pleading guilty at the first available opportunity to one count of unlawful possession of a controlled drug for sale or supply. The Court of Appeal said three further offences involving cocaine and cannabis were taken into account at sentencing. The offences occurred in Carlow in March and April 2016.
The judgment said the drugs involved had a total value of €240 and that the offences arose when Coakley agreed to supply drugs to members of An Garda Síochána during an undercover operation. He received two years’ imprisonment, with the final six months suspended for 12 months, subject to a €100 bond and probation engagement.
His appeal argued that the sentence was disproportionate, that insufficient weight had been given to a co-accused’s non-custodial sentence, and that mitigating circumstances had not been given enough weight. The judgment said that, of five other people dealt with on indictment by that point, two received custodial sentences, including Coakley, while three received non-custodial sentences. It also recorded that Coakley had 44 previous convictions, mostly for road traffic offences, and that he had not previously been imprisoned.
The Court of Appeal said a custodial sentence was justified despite the modest value of the drugs because the offending showed a regular pattern. But it considered that the sentencing objectives could have been met by a somewhat shorter sentence. It therefore intervened only to the extent of suspending the final 12 months instead of six.