The Court of Appeal has dismissed Peter Ibeabuchi’s appeal against his conviction for possessing cocaine for sale or supply and importing controlled drugs, while permitting him to withdraw his sentence appeal.
In a judgment delivered on 29 November 2018, the court upheld the conviction entered in the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court. Ibeabuchi had been convicted in November 2015 of offences under sections 15A and 15B of the Misuse of Drugs Act, involving drugs valued above €13,000. He was sentenced the following month to 10 years in prison, with the final three years suspended.
The charges arose after Ibeabuchi was stopped at Dublin Airport on 15 April 2014. He had flown from Paris, having begun his journey in Panama. Customs officers found packages of white powder in both shoes. The powder was later identified as cocaine, valued at €35,000.
The appeal court considered two grounds. The first challenged the jury hearing that two other passengers on the same flight, whose journeys had also begun in Panama, were found with cocaine in their shoes. The trial judge had admitted that evidence after a voir dire, finding it relevant and probative despite its prejudicial effect. The Court of Appeal agreed it was admissible circumstantial evidence that could assist the jury in assessing Ibeabuchi’s knowledge, and dismissed that ground.
The second ground challenged evidence about the drugs’ value as hearsay. The appeal court said the trial transcript showed that the prosecution and defence had specifically agreed that one Garda could give evidence on a number of topics, including valuation. There had been no challenge to the evidence at trial and no cross-examination on it. The court therefore dismissed that ground too.
The sentence appeal’s status had been unclear. The court noted that the sentencing judge had referred to the mandatory presumptive minimum of 10 years and found no basis to depart from it, but suspended three years. The appeal court said that if a sentence appeal were before it, quashing the sentence and resentencing could result in a substantially different term.
Ibeabuchi told the court he had not appealed his sentence and, if such an appeal was before it, wished to withdraw it. The court also considered the sentences imposed on the two co-passengers: five years, with four suspended, for the female passenger, and seven years, with four suspended, for the male passenger. With considerable reluctance, it allowed withdrawal of the sentence appeal. It did not resentence Ibeabuchi.