The Court of Appeal has dismissed appeals by Jason Keogh and Niall O’Leary against sentences of 13 years’ imprisonment, with the final three years suspended, for their roles in a cannabis operation.
The court, in a judgment delivered on 26 November 2014, found no error of principle in the approach taken by the sentencing judge. It held that the judge was entitled to conclude that a sentence exceeding 10 years, partly suspended, was required in the circumstances.
The appeals concerned the severity of sentences imposed in the Circuit Court: Keogh was sentenced on 23 May 2012 and O’Leary in November 2012. Both had pleaded guilty at an early stage and had no previous convictions.
The case arose from a Garda National Drugs Unit surveillance operation on 20 July 2011. Keogh was seen collecting seven blue barrels from a warehouse unit at Swords Business Park and loading them into a van. He and O’Leary travelled in convoy towards Woodview Cottages in Bettystown, stopping at a B&Q to buy an electric saw. After they arrived, gardaí heard the saw and obtained a warrant to enter the premises. They found about 100kg of vacuum-packed cannabis, removed from the barrels, and another unopened barrel in the van. The judgment put the estimated value of the seized drugs at €1.2 million.
Keogh admitted driving the van to collect the cannabis, renting it in advance and knowing the drugs’ likely street value. He said he was to receive €5,000. O’Leary said he was to be paid €2,500 and receive about 400g of cannabis; a follow-up search found 418g at his home.
The sentencing judge considered early pleas, cooperation, remorse, good character and low risk of reoffending as mitigating factors. The aggravating factors included the scale and value of the drugs, the appellants’ roles in moving them and their financial gain.
On appeal, Keogh argued that his mental health history had not been sufficiently considered. O’Leary argued that the impact of imprisonment on his children had not been given enough weight. The Court of Appeal accepted that the trial judge’s language about life imprisonment as a starting point was infelicitous, but concluded that he had assessed the offences and each man’s circumstances as a whole. It dismissed both appeals.