A man who pleaded guilty to impeding the prosecution of a suspect in a 2008 killing and possessing cannabis and cocaine for supply was sentenced to concurrent prison terms by the Central Criminal Court in June 2012.
Mr Justice Garrett Sheehan imposed six years for impeding the apprehension or prosecution of Conor Duffy over the unlawful killing of Aidan O’Kane. He suspended the final three years. For possessing drugs for supply, the judge imposed five years and suspended two years. The terms were to run concurrently.
The defendant pleaded guilty to both counts on 12 March 2012. The first offence concerned conduct on 7 December 2008. The drug offence covered the period from 7 to 11 December that year.
The court heard that O’Kane was shot dead in a laneway in East Wall, Dublin 3. Duffy, identified as the prime suspect, was later tried and convicted of manslaughter. During the investigation, gardaí found burnt clothing and runners believed to have been worn by Duffy, along with a bag containing a box of cannabis and cocaine hidden in a wall cavity. The judgment recorded that the drugs weighed 758 grams and 53 grams respectively, with an approximate combined value of €9,070. A revolver found in another bag in the cavity was confirmed as the weapon used in the killing.
The prosecution placed the first offence in the middle to upper range of seriousness. It accepted mitigating factors including the defendant’s age, lack of premeditation and cooperation with gardaí. The judge also considered his guilty pleas and genuine remorse. The defendant was 18 when the offences occurred and 21 at sentencing. The court heard that he had five previous convictions, including earlier drug offences; the judge said the prior drug convictions reduced the mitigation available for the drug count.
The court considered whether a non-custodial sentence was appropriate and ruled that it was not. It recognised the time that had passed since the offences and applied the principles of proportionality and totality in ordering the sentences to run together. The judgment does not state a single combined term beyond that concurrency order.