The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against the severity of a five-year prison sentence imposed on a man who pleaded guilty to cultivating cannabis at a property in Ballymote, Co Sligo.
The sentence, imposed in November 2020, included a final year suspended for two years on terms. The appeal court, in a judgment delivered on 11 February 2022, was not persuaded that the sentencing judge had erred.
Gardaí found 19 cannabis plants growing in four bedrooms during a search of the property on 26 March 2020. A further 60 pots contained compost but no plants. The judgment put the value of the growing plants at €15,200. The appellant was found with €1,500 and a key to the house. Two phones were seized; he declined to provide a phone code.
The appellant argued that his sentence was disproportionate to his co-accused’s, and challenged the weight given to his role, deterrence and his refusal to provide phone access. The respondent argued that the appellant had a substantially greater role in managing the operation, while the co-accused was an 18-year-old with a debt, whom the sentencing court regarded as a low-level worker with no part in planning or organising the crime.
The appeal court said the sentencing judge was entitled to find that the appellant was an “organiser on the ground” and that his culpability was significantly higher. It noted that the appellant was older and had two prior UK burglary convictions, while the co-accused had none. Both had pleaded guilty, but the co-accused had also cooperated with Gardaí and described his role.
The court addressed the phone issue in the context of the evidence as a whole. It said the appellant was entitled not to cooperate, but the judge could consider the absence of cooperation alongside the other evidence when assessing culpability. The court found no unfair inference had been drawn.
The sentencing judge set a seven-year headline sentence for the appellant before reducing it to five years and suspending the final year. The appeal court said the reductions for mitigation were within the trial judge’s margin of appreciation. It also rejected the challenge concerning general deterrence, noting that the judge had considered proportionality, rehabilitation and personal circumstances. The appeal was dismissed.