The Court of Appeal has dismissed Michael Donoghue’s appeal against the severity of an eight-year prison sentence for a drugs offence, finding no error in the sentencing judge’s approach.
The sentence was imposed in the Circuit Court in Cork on 27 November 2014 for an offence under section 15A of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The Court of Appeal judgment, delivered on 24 June 2016, records that gardaí searching an address off Dominick Street, Cork, on 2 March 2012 found a black refuse sack in a wheelie bin in the back garden. It contained 4kg of cannabis, valued in the judgment at €47,646.
Donoghue returned while the search was under way. The judgment says he was detained and admitted in interviews that he was storing the drugs because of pressure from people to whom he owed a drugs debt. At the time of the offence he was 23 and had 43 previous convictions, including two section 15 drugs convictions and nine section 3 convictions.
The sentencing court had been told that Donoghue came from a difficult family background, began using drugs at 13 and was addicted to heroin by 17. The appeal argued that the sentencing judge gave insufficient weight to his personal circumstances and the pressure he said he had faced. It also challenged the refusal to suspend part of the sentence and provide for post-release supervision.
The prosecution had argued at sentencing that the eight-year term should run consecutively to the activated portion of a suspended sentence Donoghue was then serving. The sentencing judge declined to do so. The Court of Appeal treated that decision as a benefit to Donoghue when assessing whether the sentence was unduly severe.
The appeal court said the sentencing judge’s exchanges with counsel showed he was aware of the evidence about the claimed pressure. It noted that the offence carried a presumptive mandatory minimum sentence, and that the sentencing judge had identified factors allowing a departure from it. The court also cited the seriousness of the offence, Donoghue’s previous convictions and the reduced value of his initial assistance after he fled to the United Kingdom.
The Court of Appeal concluded there was no error in principle in imposing eight years’ imprisonment or in declining to suspend part of the term. It dismissed the appeal.