The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by Ehioma Monye against a three-year prison sentence for importing cannabis into Ireland.
Monye pleaded guilty to importing a controlled drug, contrary to section 15B of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977. Dublin Circuit Criminal Court sentenced him on 17 December 2019. The appeal court delivered its decision on 29 May 2020.
The judgment said Monye flew from Barcelona to Dublin on 24 July 2019. Customs officers stopped him at Dublin Airport after a sniffer dog indicated a bag from Barcelona. A search found 2.6kg of cannabis herb, which the judgment valued at an estimated €52,438. Monye told officers that he had lived in Barcelona since October 2018 and worked as an engineer. He later told gardaí he did not know the drugs were in his bag. He subsequently pleaded guilty.
On appeal, Monye argued that the sentencing judge had not properly balanced the mitigating and aggravating factors, explained the sentence’s starting point or given adequate credit for mitigation. He also argued that some or all of the sentence should have been suspended to support rehabilitation. The prosecution accepted there were mitigating factors but argued that the seriousness of the offence and the statutory minimum sentence weighed against suspending the term.
The Court of Appeal said the sentencing judge had departed from the presumptive minimum of 10 years, although he had not expressly set out the circumstances permitting that departure. It found that circumstances existed to allow it. The court also said the judge’s failure to nominate a headline sentence was not, by itself, an error in principle.
The appeal court described Monye’s role as transporting the drugs for financial gain. It said the role was a lesser one but still important, and that the offence was serious. It was not persuaded that the three-year sentence reflected an error or that the sentencing judge had failed to account sufficiently for the mitigating factors. Those factors, the court said, did not amount to exceptional circumstances justifying a wholly suspended sentence. It also found no error in the decision not to suspend any part of the term.
The Court of Appeal held that the sentence was within the margin of appreciation afforded to the sentencing judge and dismissed the appeal.