The Court of Appeal reduced Shane Ferguson’s seven-year prison sentence for a major cannabis operation to six years, citing the risk of grievance over the more lenient sentence given to his co-accused. It said the original seven-year term was appropriate for the seriousness of the crime and Ferguson’s culpability.
Ferguson had pleaded guilty to three drug offences in Limerick Circuit Criminal Court. In January 2014, he received seven years for possessing drugs worth at least €13,000 for supply. No separate orders were made on two other counts, which were taken into consideration. He appealed the sentence as excessive.
The appeal judgment said the prosecution evidence described Ferguson arranging insurance and hiring a van, driving it to Poyntzpass in County Down to collect cannabis, removing identifying stickers and meeting Ciaran Nevin on his return to County Limerick. Nevin transferred five boxes to a cottage. Police found more than 52.2kg of cannabis, with an estimated street value of €1,450,138.
Ferguson argued that the sentencing judge had overstated the difference between his involvement and Nevin’s, and had wrongly treated Ferguson’s failure to mention drug addiction in police interviews as aggravating. The Court of Appeal rejected the second ground. It said the sentencing judge had not treated the silence as an aggravating factor, but had considered whether Ferguson’s involvement was driven by addiction or financial gain.
The court found no rational basis for differentiating between the two men to the extent the sentencing judge had. It noted that Nevin had received a five-year sentence, which was not under appeal and which the court described as arguably very lenient, possibly unduly so. The judges said the sentence disparity could create a sense of grievance and affect public confidence and consistency in sentencing.
The court nevertheless said seven years was appropriate for the gravity of the offence and Ferguson’s culpability. After quashing the original sentence, it considered new testimonials about his conduct and work in prison, and his efforts towards rehabilitation. Exercising its discretion, it imposed a six-year sentence instead. The court stressed that its decision did not mean seven years was inappropriate for the crime.