The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against the severity of a three-year sentence imposed on a man who pleaded guilty to cultivating cannabis without a licence.
The appellant was sentenced by Galway Circuit Criminal Court on 23 April 2021 to three years’ imprisonment, with the final year suspended on terms. In its judgment delivered on 17 January 2022, the Court of Appeal found no error in principle and upheld the sentence. The judgment says the suspended year left an actual prison term of two years.
Gardaí searched a property in Ballinasloe, Co Galway, on 10 September 2019 under a warrant. They found 49 cannabis plants, valued at €39,200, in an upstairs area converted into a grow house. The plants were at a mid-mature stage. The judgment records that the appellant resided at the property and later accepted responsibility for the plants.
The sentencing judge described the operation as sophisticated and placed the offence in the mid-range, setting a headline sentence of four and a half years. The judge cited the number and value of the plants and the alterations made to the property. Mitigating matters included the appellant’s early guilty plea, difficult childhood, previous convictions considered old, and his voluntary assistance to the Tuam Home Survivors Network. The judge reduced the sentence to three years and suspended its final year.
The appellant argued that the sentence was excessive, that the sentencing judge wrongly suggested he was dealing drugs for profit, and that the mitigation deserved greater weight. His submissions said he had allowed third parties to use his rented property as a grow house after borrowing money, and that he had pleaded guilty to cultivation rather than dealing.
The Director of Public Prosecutions accepted that no evidence was led that the appellant was dealing drugs for profit, but argued that the scale and modifications showed a commercial enterprise and that the sentence properly reflected the offence and mitigation.
The Court of Appeal said the sentencing judge’s wording about dealing for profit could have been phrased differently. It nevertheless found the operation was a significant commercial enterprise and held that the judge was entitled to consider its scale and the appellant’s involvement when setting the sentence for cultivation. The court also concluded that the judge had properly considered the mitigation, including by reducing the headline sentence by one third and suspending the final year. It dismissed the appeal.