Suspended sentence for drug dealer caught with €114k of cocaine not too lenient, court finds
The Court of Appeal has ruled that a fully suspended sentence was not unduly lenient for a man who was being paid €500 per week for his role in the supply of drugs when he was caught with €114,000 worth of cocaine.
Mohamed Adeagbo (24) of Highfield, Ballincollig, County Cork, pleaded guilty to having cocaine for sale or supply at a time when its street value exceeded €13,000, at his home address on April 25, 2022.
He also pleaded guilty to a money-laundering charge that on April 22, 2022, at the address at Highfield Park, he possessed the proceeds of criminal conduct, namely €1,530 in cash, while knowing that it was the proceeds of criminal conduct.
He was sentenced to three and a half years for the drug offence, fully suspended, with a concurrent one-year sentence on the second charge, also fully suspended by Judge Helen Boyle at Cork Circuit Criminal Court last November.
Lawyers for the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) launched an appeal earlier this month, arguing that Adeagbo's sentence was unduly lenient. The DPP said there were no wholly exceptional circumstances that could warrant fully suspending the three-and-a-half-year sentence.
Imelda Kelly BL, for the DPP, said that Adeagbo had been detected with 1.6 kilos of cocaine with a value of €114,000, as well as a quantity of cannabis and cash totalling €1,530.
She pointed out that the gardaí said the 24-year-old had been actively involved in the supply of drugs, for which he was receiving €500 per week, and an iPhone had been seized from his home containing offending messages, the barrister said.
Ms. Kelly argued the sentencing judge had erred by placing excessive weight on the mitigating factors and failing to give sufficient consideration to the principles of deterrence.
Adeagbo's barrister Alice Fawsitt SC said that her client had been a 21-year-old with no life experience, who came from a family of limited means and displayed no trappings of wealth.
In dismissing the appeal at the Court of Appeal today, Mr Justice Brian O'Moore said Adeagbo had satisfied the judge that he was drug free at the time of sentencing, had complied entirely with everything that was asked of him by the Probation Service and had done his 'level best' to get himself back on track.
'The sentencing judge was quite entitled, in those truly exceptional circumstances, to fully suspend the sentence imposed on Mr Adeagbo,' Mr Justice O'Moore said.
The judge said the headline sentence of five years was not in dispute and the reduction of that sentence by 18 months, given the signed plea of guilty, was 'in no way inappropriate'.
'The suspending of the balance of the sentence did not form a substantial or gross departure from what was an appropriate sentence in the circumstances,' he said.
Cocaine. Stock image
News in 90 Seconds - Tuesday, July 29
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Daily Mirror
3 hours ago
- Irish Daily Mirror
Nikita Hand suing Conor McGregor again, as well as withdrawn witnesses
Nikita Hand is once again suing Conor McGregor - this time for his alleged abuse of the courts process. The Irish Mirror understands that Ms Hand is suing McGregor - as well as couple Samantha O'Reilly and Stephen Cummins, who were spectacularly withdrawn as witnesses at the final moment of the fighter's appeal. In a comment to The Irish Mirror, Nikita's solicitors stated: "We confirm that further proceedings have been issued in the High Court and a Statement of claims has been prepared and will be served imminently." The Irish Mirror understands the case against McGregor, Ms O'Reilly and Stephen Cummins are for damages for malicious abuse of the process of the court by the Defendants, and each of them, their respective servants and/or agents. She is suing for aggravated and punitive damages as well as costs. The papers were lodged for Ms Hand's new High Court case yesterday - following his failure to appeal a civil jury finding that he raped her. It comes as we revealed he is set to pay Ms Hand over €2m in legal costs - after three Judges of the Court of Appeal upheld a finding by a jury that he assaulted Ms Hand - whereby they agreed that he raped her in the Beacon Hotel in south Dublin in December 2018. The Irish Mirror's Crime Writers Michael O'Toole and Paul Healy are writing a new weekly newsletter called Crime Ireland. Click here to sign up and get it delivered to your inbox every week Those costs are set to be paid to Nikita as is the balance of a €250,000 in damages awarded to her by the jury at the end of the High Court case last November. It comes as brave Nikita spoke to the media outside the Four Courts in Dublin following the bombshell ruling on Thursday, in which she said she had been "re-traumatised" by the famous fighter's appeal. "I'm deeply grateful for everyone who supported me, believed in me and stood by my side during this long and painful journey. "This appeal has retraumatised me over and over again. "Being forced to relive it, what has happened has had a huge impact on me. For every survivor out there, I know how hard it is but please don't be silent, you deserve to be heard, you also deserve justice. Today I can finally move on and try to heal. Thank you," she said. Rejecting McGregor and James Lawrence's appeal, Mr Justice Brian O'Moore outlined from the outset why Nikita should be awarded her costs, and spoke in detail of the "vindication" she received by being believed by the jury. "Ms. Hand had prevailed in one of the most hard-fought trials of recent years. A great deal of her vindication must have been found not only in the award of damages, but in the fact that the jury believed her," he said. Nikita Hand speaking to the media after attending the Court of Appeal (Image: SAM BOAL/COLLINS PHOTOS) Later in rejecting James Lawrence's appeal for his costs - "a bounty of several hundred thousand euro" to be paid, would effectively mean Ms Hand would end up having to pay McGregor - who was footing his bill anyway. "It would mean that, should Mr. Lawrence be awarded some or all of his costs, Ms. Hand would be making a payment initially to an individual who gave inaccurate evidence against her, and ultimately to the man who raped her. Such a circumstance should weigh heavily with this Court," he said. The Judge also heavily criticised McGregor for his conduct and attempt to introduce 'new evidence' in the case in the form of couple Samantha O'Reilly and Stephen Cummins - who claimed to have witnessed Ms Hand possibly being assaulted by her ex partner - only to sensationally withdraw the sworn affidavits on the opening of the appeal. The issue has been referred by the Judges to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to decide whether any perjury was committed. Conor McGregor and partner Dee Devlin leave the High Court in November Likening the attempt to an "attack" on the jury's finding he said: "The jury's belief that she had been raped was subject to a root and branch attack in this appeal by the deploying of this 'new evidence' by the McGregor side. None of the many factors identified by counsel in explaining the late withdrawal of this 'new evidence' amounted to anything that could not have been done months ago. "The conduct of Mr. McGregor, in publicly introducing evidence which fundamentally called into question the correctness of the jury's verdict and the testimony of Ms. Hand which had led to it, only to abandon that evidence when it was about to be tested is behaviour which deserves to be marked by a palpable sign of the court's displeasure and disapproval," Judge O'Moore added. "I would therefore award Ms. Hand her costs of the "new evidence" motions on a legal practitioner and own client basis against Mr. McGregor." The Judge outlined in detail how Counsel for McGregor sought to withdraw the evidence at the final hour - but surmised that there must be another reason why it was. "Some other factor, upon which this court does not wish to speculate, led to the abrupt decision to scuttle one of the more significant (and certainly the most public) grounds of appeal advanced on behalf of Mr. McGregor," he said. The three Judges - consisting of Judge O'Moore, Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy and Mr Justice Michael MacGrath rejected all grounds of McGregor's appeal - including that his garda interviews shouldn't have been admitted into evidence and that the issue paper given to the jury should have specified sexual assault and not simply 'assault.' On that issue the Judges were clear - in that the jury found McGregor assaulted Ms Hand on the basis of their full understanding that the assault was a rape. "The case alleged by the Respondent was that she had been raped by the Appellant," Judgement states. Judge O'Moore stated he did not think that the trial Judge - Mr Justice Alexander Owens could have been clearer in explaining' that the issue they were deciding upon was one of rape. "It is simply unreal to suggest that, faced with the issue framed in such a brutally clear way by the trial judge, any member of the jury then became confused about the meaning of question 1 on the Issue Paper," he went on to say. He also rejected McGregor's appeal that the jury were confused about what they were deciding upon based on the award. Judge O'Moore said the "thorough and comprehensive way in which the trial judge charged the jury and in particular the repeated reference to the assault in question 1 being nothing other than the alleged rape of Ms. Hand means that no member of the jury could have been in any doubt about what question 1 on the Issue Paper meant." (Image: SAM BOAL/COLLINS PHOTOS) Rejecting McGregor's appeal that his 'no comment' answers to gardai which were brought up during cross examination warranted an unfair trial, Judge O'Moore stated that while he did not agree with how the trial Judge initially ruled on the matter, he did go on to properly inform the jury. Judge O'Moore stated he was "satisfied" that any potential prejudice to McGregor "is simply not established" in this case and that the trial Judge was "astute to ensure that this evidence could not be seen by the jury as suggestive or supportive of a claim of rape by Ms. Hand." He further stated that Judge Owens "did quite enough" to avoid adverse effects put forward by McGregor in his appeal." A real risk of an unfair trial has not been demonstrated by Mr. McGregor,' he said. The judgement also rejected McGregor's claim of alleged failures in the trial Judge's charge to the jury. Judge O'Moore said Mr Justice Owens in fact 'spent a great deal of time' charging the jury on individual items of evidence in the case. Co-defendant James Lawrence - who the jury found did not rape Ms Hand, was seeking for the Court of Appeal to reverse a decision by the trial judge not to award him damages - due to the fact that McGregor was paying his costs. In finding against Lawrence, Mr Justice O'Moore spoke of the "arrangement" between the UFC fighter and him, which he said is "shrouded in mystery." Supporters of Nikita hand at the Court of Appeal in Dublin this morning "One possibility, as I have mentioned, is that Mr. Lawrence does not have to (or will not voluntarily) repay Mr. McGregor. If that is the case, it would simply not be appropriate to enrich Mr. Lawrence by providing him with a sum of money in respect of costs that he has never had to pay," he said. He went on to state that it appeared from McGregor's evidence that James Lawrence could not from his own resources "have engaged a full legal team at all." "Mr. McGregor's funding of Mr. Lawrence's costs may, therefore, have been money well spent," he said. Sign up to the Irish Mirror's Courts and Crime newsletter here and get breaking crime updates and news from the courts direct to your inbox.
Irish Times
4 hours ago
- Irish Times
Nikita Hand to sue Conor McGregor and two former neighbours over withdrawn claims in failed appeal
Nikita Hand has initiated new legal proceedings against Conor McGregor and two people previously due to give evidence in his failed appeal against the outcome of a civil rape case Ms Hand won against him last November. The High Court action was filed on Thursday, shortly after the Court of Appeal dismissed the MMA fighter's appeal. The three-judge Court of Appeal, in a unanimous judgment, dismissed all grounds of the appeal . Ms Hand, accompanied by friends and supporters, was in court for the ruling. Mr McGregor was not present. Ms Hand is now suing Mr McGregor, Samantha O'Reilly and Steven Cummins for damages. Mr McGregor had claimed that fresh evidence provided by Ms O'Reilly and Mr Cummins bolstered his insistence he was not responsible for bruising on Ms Hand's body following the alleged assault in December 2018. The fresh evidence included sworn statements from Ms O'Reilly and Mr Cummins, who lived across the road from Ms Hand in Drimnagh, Dublin in late 2018. In an affidavit sworn last January, Ms O'Reilly claimed she had witnessed, from her home, a physical altercation between Ms Hand and her then partner Stephen Redmond in their home on the night of December 9th/10th, 2018. In an affidavit, Ms Hand described her neighbours' claims as lies and said Mr Redmond never assaulted her that night or at any time during their relationship. The application to admit the neighbours' evidence was dramatically withdrawn by Mr McGregor's side at the outset of the appeal on July 1st. The court granted Ms Hand's lawyers application to have the matter referred for consideration of possible perjury, including possible induced perjury by Mr McGregor. Last November, a High Court jury found Mr McGregor had assaulted Ms Hand and awarded her almost €250,000 in damages. In the appeal court judgment on Thursday, Mr Justice Brian O'Moore, sitting with Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy and Mr Justice Michael McGrath, said the jury had to decide in essence between Mr McGregor's description of 'a rather tawdry episode' and Ms Hand's claim a criminal offence had been committed against her. The court dismissed all grounds of the appeal including a claim Mr McGregor's side was deprived of the right of an effective cross-examination in relation to the availability of expert reports. The court also ruled Ms Hand was entitled to costs, at the highest solicitor-client level, of the last-minute withdrawal, in what Mr Justice Brian O'Moore described as 'mysterious' circumstances, of two motions brought by Mr McGregor seeking to have fresh evidence admitted.
Sunday World
16 hours ago
- Sunday World
Man who beat victim to death with shovel told gardai ‘I hope the c**t is dead'
GUILTY PLEA | Joseph Cahill (46) pleaded guilty to the unlawful killing of 43-year-old Gerard 'Ger' Curtin Joseph Cahill A sentencing hearing for Joseph Cahill (46), who pleaded guilty to the unlawful killing of 43-year-old Gerard 'Ger' Curtin, heard that Cahill had previously threatened to kill the deceased after Mr Curtin came to his house, threw stones at his windows, threatened to burn the house down and demanded money. Mr Curtin left after Cahill's partner gave him €300. Inspector James Ruddle of Roxboro Road Garda Station in Limerick told the court that Curtin returned to Cahill's house in the early hours about two weeks later, again demanding money. CCTV footage showed the deceased smashing a window of the Cahill home with a rock. The lock on Cahill's front door was broken so he had propped a shovel against it to keep out intruders. Cahill took the shovel, opened the door and struck the victim on the head, causing him to immediately fall to the ground, the inspector said. Cahill then struck Mr Curtin three more times as he lay "defenceless and immobile" on the ground. Gerard Curtin Before delivering the blows, Cahill called emergency services and asked for the police. After delivering the fatal blows, with Mr Curtin lying motionless on the ground, Cahill told the call-taker that a man was trying to get into his house. He waited a further eight minutes and 30 seconds before telling the call taker to send an ambulance. When asked why he needed an ambulance, Cahill said: "I think he's dead... I had to protect my kids. I don't give a fuck about going to jail. I beat a shovel off his head and I kept beating, to tell you the truth." The first garda at the scene made a note of Cahill saying: "I hit him with a shovel, I hope the c**t is dead." Garret Baker SC, for the Director of Public Prosecutions, told Ms Justice Eileen Creedon that Cahill was originally charged with murder. He said the DPP accepted the manslaughter plea on the basis that Cahill honestly believed that he was protecting himself, his property and his children but that the force he used in striking Mr Curtin four times with the shovel was excessive. On May 30 this year, Cahill, of Sarsfield Avenue, Garryowen, Limerick pleaded guilty to the unlawful killing of Gerard Curtin on November 4, 2023 outside his home. Mr Baker said the offence warrants a headline sentence of ten to 15 years. In an impact statement, Bianca Hickey told the court that the deceased was a brother, father, partner and friend. She said the family has always been "close-knit" but the killing tore them apart. Joseph Cahill News in 90 Seconds - Thursday, July 31 She said they have watched their parents become "completely different people". Their mother "traded nights at bingo for sleepless nights and endless nightmares" while their father lost interest in his hobbies and no longer loves chatting and laughing with his family. They never got to say goodbye or kiss him one last time because his injuries were so catastrophic that his coffin had to be closed. Inspector Ruddle agreed with Michael O'Higgins SC, for Cahill, that gardai were aware of allegations over many years that Mr Curtin had smashed windows of houses and threatened the occupants. The court heard that eight days after the killing, Cahill's home was petrol bombed and the family was forced to move out of the area. Cahill's sister's home was also petrol bombed at 5am while all people living there were in bed, the court was told. When Mr O'Higgins began to read a letter of apology from his client, the deceased's family stood up and walked out of court. In the letter, Cahill said he wanted to "express how deeply sorry I am" to the victim's partner and children. He said he carries the "massive burden" of what he did every day and has turned the lives of his own family upside down. "I never set out or imagined that night going to bed that anything like this would happen," he said. Mr O'Higgins said his client has a long history of mental illness, polysubstance abuse and a gambling addiction. He pointed to a psychiatric report which states that due to childhood trauma, Cahill is predisposed to act irrationally and to overreact to threats against himself and his family. He has no relevant previous convictions and, Mr O'Higgins said, is not likely to come before the courts again. Counsel asked the court to take into account that Cahill was woken on the night by a volatile man smashing his windows and trying to cross the threshold into his home. The four blows took just four seconds, he said, and although the force used was excessive, counsel asked the court to consider how quickly his brain could process what was happening. While Mr O'Higgins said the court would have to impose a custodial sentence, he asked Ms Justice Creedon to offer the "maximum leniency" possible. Ms Justice Creedon adjourned sentencing to November 24.
