The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against the severity of concurrent four-and-a-half-year prison sentences imposed on a man who pleaded guilty to drug supply and cannabis cultivation offences.
The court, in a judgment delivered ex tempore on 24 January 2022, found no error in the sentencing judge’s approach. The sentences were backdated to 18 August 2020.
Gardaí searched a property in Dundalk, County Dublin, under warrant on 18 August 2020. They found roughly 8kg of cannabis herb, 70 mature plants and 104 saplings. The man was found in bed on the top floor. Items associated with cultivation were also found, and the court heard the property had an irrigation system and an electricity meter that had been interfered with. The drugs seized were valued at €219,784.
The man pleaded guilty to possessing a controlled drug for sale or supply, contrary to section 15 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977, and cultivating cannabis plants, contrary to section 17. At sentencing, the judge set headline terms of seven and a half years for the supply offence and eight years for cultivation, then reduced each to four and a half years. The terms were ordered to run concurrently.
On appeal, counsel argued that the sentences were excessive and that the judge had not given sufficient weight to the man’s youth, lack of previous convictions, work history, early guilty plea and limited English. The appeal submissions also said he had arrived in Ireland 11 days before the offences were detected, had no family in the country and intended to return to Lithuania after serving his sentence. Counsel argued that a suspended or partly suspended term should have been considered.
The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that this was a sophisticated, high-value operation undertaken for financial gain, rather than a small-scale cultivation case. The Director also submitted that the sentence reflected the difficulties the man might face as a foreign national with limited English in prison.
The Court of Appeal said the operation was sophisticated and involved controlled substances of high value. It found the man’s role tending the plants was essential, and that his financial purpose, with no evidence of coercion or hardship, increased his culpability. The court found no error in the headline sentences. It said the sentencing judge had carefully considered mitigation, including the early plea, youth, limited English and family access, bereavement and work history, and had allowed a generous discount. The appeal was dismissed.