The Court of Appeal has dismissed George Finglas’s appeal against the severity of a nine-year prison sentence for possessing cannabis worth €13,000 or more for sale or supply.
In a judgment delivered on 19 December 2023, the court found that no error in principle had been established. The sentence imposed by the trial court therefore stands. The Court of Appeal did not resentence Finglas.
Finglas pleaded guilty on 28 January 2022 to possessing a controlled drug for sale or supply, contrary to section 15A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977. On 12 October 2022, he was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment. The term was backdated to 10 September 2021, when he had voluntarily entered custody. Three other counts were taken into consideration.
The case arose after Customs and Revenue officers detected plant material in two pallets at Dublin Port on 1 February 2021. Gardaí arranged a controlled delivery to commercial premises at Western Industrial Estate, Dublin 12. Finglas collected the pallets in a rented van and drove to commercial premises in Baldongan, Lusk, where Gardaí stopped him. The van contained 128.45kg of cannabis, valued at €2.56 million, and three mobile phones.
In a prepared statement during his fifth Garda interview, Finglas admitted involvement and said he had been directed to collect, transport, strip down and count the drugs. He said he feared those directing him and owed a gambling debt of €25,000, which would be reduced after the job. The investigating garda accepted that account. A message on an encrypted phone referred to €13,000 in wages, which the sentencing judge accepted would be deducted from the debt.
The sentencing judge set a pre-mitigation headline sentence of 12 to 14 years, describing the offence as serious. The statutory presumptive minimum for an adult convicted of this offence is 10 years, but the judge found circumstances that justified departing from it and imposed nine years after considering mitigation.
On appeal, Finglas argued that the headline sentence was excessive and that the sentencing judge had given too much weight to aggravating factors. The Court of Appeal said the quantity and value of the drugs, Finglas’s role in handling them and the expected benefit supported the 12-to-14-year headline range. It also held that the reduction for mitigating factors was appropriate. The appeal was dismissed.