The Court of Criminal Appeal has refused Joseph Daly leave to appeal his 25-year prison sentence for possessing cocaine for sale or supply, ruling that the sentence was appropriate to the gravity of his offending.
Daly had also been convicted of simple possession and possession for sale or supply. The Court of Criminal Appeal, in a judgment delivered on 20 October 2011, said the sentence imposed on the principal offence was severe but within the trial judge’s discretion. His other convictions had been taken into account when sentence was imposed.
The appeal was against sentence; an earlier appeal against conviction was no longer being pursued. Daly argued that 25 years was excessive and that the trial judge had failed to distinguish properly between him and his co-accused. He also contended that the disparity with Gerard Hagan, who received 10 years after pleading guilty, was unjustified.
The court described the seizure as one of the largest drug hauls detected in Ireland. It involved 1,554kg of cocaine, with a reported purity of about 75%. Garda evidence at sentencing put a conservative value at €108 million. The judgment described an international operation involving a catamaran, inflatable boats, vehicles and navigation equipment.
The court found Daly was an integrated member of the operation, not a courier on an isolated task. It said he had brought vehicles, including the rigid inflatable boat used in the transfer, into Ireland and was linked to equipment used to coordinate the handover. The court also considered his limited and relatively minor previous convictions and other mitigation raised on appeal.
Daly’s 25-year term was five years shorter than the 30-year sentences imposed on Perry Wharrie and Martin Wanden, who were tried and convicted alongside him. The court found their culpability was similar and that the difference fairly reflected Daly’s less serious record.
It accepted that the 15-year difference between Daly’s sentence and Hagan’s could not be readily explained by their respective roles. Hagan had pleaded guilty, assisted Gardaí and expressed remorse; the court said his role in the operation was at least as culpable as Daly’s. But it held that parity did not require reducing an otherwise appropriate sentence to match a term it considered too lenient. The court also accepted the trial judge’s assurance that Daly had not been penalised for pleading not guilty and defending the case.
The court concluded that reducing Daly’s sentence to address the disparity would conflict with sentencing principles. It refused leave to appeal. The judgment did not alter Daly’s conviction or sentence.