The Court of Appeal has dismissed Jonathan Brooks’s appeal against the severity of a four-and-a-half-year prison sentence for possessing cannabis worth more than €13,000 for sale or supply. The appeal focused on the trial judge’s refusal to suspend part of the sentence.
Brooks pleaded guilty to the offence under section 15A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977, as amended. He was sentenced on 24 February 2021. The Court of Appeal delivered its judgment on 1 July 2022.
The offence arose from a Garda drug patrol in Tallaght on 24 May 2019. Gardaí saw Brooks and another man cycling into a housing estate with bags that initially appeared empty. When Gardaí later saw them, the bags appeared full. The other man ran away. Brooks was arrested at about 6.30pm, and Gardaí found three packages containing 2.995kg of cannabis in his Adidas bag. The judgment put the drugs’ value at €59,980.
After his arrest, Brooks said he had done it for money and mentioned his daughter’s Communion the following day in Carlow. He said he would receive €200. In a prepared statement during interview, he said he was sorry, had acted to reduce a drug debt, and had a cocaine addiction. He claimed the debt was €1,800 and would be reduced through the transaction. The appeal judgment records that it was accepted he was under pressure over the debt and that reducing it was consideration for his role as courier.
The trial judge took account of Brooks’s remorse, counselling, family support and efforts to rehabilitate. A probation report described him as presenting a high risk of reoffending, but the judge considered that assessment unduly pessimistic and saw a prospect of rehabilitation. The judge imposed four and a half years, below the presumptive 10-year minimum, and declined to suspend any part.
On appeal, Brooks argued that a portion should have been suspended to support rehabilitation. The Court of Appeal noted his progress in addressing addiction and the material submitted on his behalf, but also cited his previous convictions for drug offences and the considerable value of the cannabis. It said the trial judge had considered the aggravating and mitigating factors and was entitled to choose a sentence without suspension.
The court held that intervention required an identified error of principle. It found none and dismissed the appeal. The four-and-a-half-year sentence therefore remained in place.