The Court of Appeal has dismissed Patrick Purcell’s appeal against the severity of his sentence for possessing drugs for sale or supply, leaving in place a nine-year prison term with the final two years suspended.
In a judgment delivered on 26 April 2018, the court rejected all four grounds of appeal. It held that the 12-year headline sentence selected by the sentencing judge was within the available range and that the judge had given credit for the mitigating circumstances raised on Purcell’s behalf.
Purcell had pleaded guilty to a charge under section 15A of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The Court of Appeal said the offences involved €1,087,138 worth of ketamine and €14,896 worth of cocaine found in a storage unit in Straffan, as well as ketamine worth about €103,000 that was handed to a co-accused. The judgment refers to 18kg of ketamine and 212g of cocaine in the unit.
Gardaí had observed Purcell driving a van after a visit to a storage unit rented to him. At Maiden’s Row in Chapelizod, a passenger handed a package to another man; gardaí intervened and found ketamine in the package. Purcell told gardaí he had been paid to make a delivery and admitted involvement. He said he had a chronic drug problem and was clearing a €1,500 cocaine debt. The prosecution accepted that his admissions and guilty plea assisted its case.
At sentencing, the judge set a 12-year headline term, placing the offending at the lower end of the upper range for section 15A offences. She then imposed nine years, suspending the final two years. The appeal argued that the judge had earlier indicated the offending was in the upper middle range, overstated aggravating factors, gave insufficient weight to mitigation and imposed a sentence out of parity with those of two co-accused.
The appeal court said the sentencing judge was entitled to reflect after reserving judgment and that the distinction between the ranges did not establish an error. It described a cited comparator case as a poor comparison, saying Purcell had an active role in storing, weighing and distributing a large quantity of drugs for payment. The court also said the sentencing judge had credited his plea, admissions, family circumstances, addiction and efforts to address it, remorse, financial difficulties and testimonials.
The court rejected the parity argument, noting that one co-accused was accepted to have no involvement in the wider enterprise, while the other had a prior section 15A conviction and received the mandatory ten-year term. The appeal was dismissed.