The Court of Appeal has dismissed David O’Driscoll’s appeal against his sentence for possession of cocaine for sale or supply, obstruction of a peace officer and dangerous driving. It found no error of principle in the sentencing judge’s decision to distinguish his sentence from that of his co-defendant, Wayne Moynihan.
The judgment, delivered ex tempore by Chief Justice Frank Clarke on 3 December 2019, concerned offences committed on 26 April 2018. The men were arrested after a car driven by O’Driscoll was intercepted on an exit junction from the Dublin–Cork motorway near Cork City. The car reversed down the ramp, crashed into a tree, and Moynihan was seen trying to throw white powder from the passenger window. Both men were apprehended after attempts to escape. Cocaine residue valued at €2,716 was found in the car; the evidence indicated that a larger quantity had been present before some was thrown out.
O’Driscoll pleaded guilty on 4 February 2019. At sentencing, the judge set a six-year headline sentence, reduced by one year for the guilty plea and education courses undertaken in custody. A concurrent six-month sentence was imposed for dangerous driving, along with a ten-year driving disqualification. Moynihan received a five-year sentence, with 18 months suspended on condition that he remain under probation and welfare service care.
O’Driscoll argued on appeal that the difference between the sentences breached the principle that co-offenders should generally receive comparable sentences. His counsel also argued that the sentencing judge placed excessive weight on a negative probation report. The Director of Public Prosecutions submitted that the distinction was justified by the men’s different criminal records, culpability and engagement with probation services.
The Court of Appeal said co-offenders should generally receive comparable sentences where circumstances are equal, but sentencing judges must assess each person’s role, circumstances and record. It accepted that O’Driscoll’s record was more serious and that his failure to engage adequately with probation contrasted with Moynihan’s more positive report. Those factors justified the partial suspension granted to Moynihan but not to O’Driscoll.
The court also held that a one-year reduction—slightly more than 15 per cent—was within the available range. Both men had been caught red-handed, limiting the reduction appropriate for a guilty plea, and the judge was entitled to weigh O’Driscoll’s difficult early years and progress in prison against the probation report’s assessment of limited rehabilitation prospects. The appeal was dismissed.