The Court of Appeal has dismissed appeals by Michael Devlin Senior and Michael Devlin Junior against the severity of their sentences for offences under section 15A of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The court found that the sentences fell within the range available to the Circuit Court and that no error in principle had been established.
The appeals concerned 12-year prison sentences imposed in the Circuit Court in Dundalk on 24 October 2014, following guilty pleas. The final four years were suspended for Senior and the final two years for Junior. The Court of Appeal did not alter those sentences.
The case arose from a lorry delivery in the Termonfeckin area of County Louth on 20 September 2013. An off-duty garda became suspicious after the lorry’s driver showed him a delivery docket for a company and address the garda did not recognise. Gardaí observed the lorry and a Citroen car driven by Senior, with Junior as a passenger, travelling in convoy to an industrial estate complex.
At the site, gardaí saw goods being removed from the container. They seized 262 packages of cannabis weighing 64.50kg, with a stated street value of just over €1.3 million. The Court of Appeal described the operation as sophisticated and noted that other people were at the yard, including someone to operate a forklift.
The court recorded that Junior rented the shed unit and that the packages’ numbered labels corresponded to a list of names and quantities found on him. Junior had told the court that his involvement followed pressure over a €10,000 drugs debt, but had also said he believed the container held cigarettes. The judgment noted the difficulty of reconciling those explanations. Senior accepted that he possessed cannabis and knew it was illegal.
In considering the appeals, the court noted the early guilty pleas and that neither man had a previous drugs conviction. It also recorded Junior’s heroin addiction and Senior’s health conditions and history of serious injuries. The court said the sentencing judge had been entitled to find that a 10-year term to be served would be unjust in Junior’s case. It found the 12-year starting sentence was not excessive in either case, and that suspending four years for Senior significantly addressed the mitigating factors.
The judgment also noted material submitted on the morning of the appeal about the men’s constructive activity in prison. The court said it was impressed by that material but could not consider it because the case had not reached the stage of resentencing.