Judge refuses to accept Tipperary man caught with drugs at railway station was 'mere pawn'

A man who travelled from Limerick to Thurles to collect cannabis in order to repay a drugs debt has been jailed by Judge John Martin at Nenagh Circuit Criminal Court.

Sgt David Godfrey told the court that Keith Lonergan, 46, who is originally from Clonmel but lives at 55 St Lawrence’s Park, Garryowen, Limerick, was observed by gardaí attempting to hide a bag behind a bin at Thurles Railway Station on March 24, 2021, in the company of another individual.

The bag was found to contain suspected cannabis.

The other male “took off” along the tracks and Mr Lonergan was detained under the Misuse of Drugs Act.

The drugs were estimated to be worth €9,960.

A subsequent search of Mr Lonergan’s house in Limerick unearthed a further €2,330 worth of drugs.

Mr Lonergan was interviewed on four occasions and admitted possession of the drugs.

He was subsequently charged with possession and with possession for sale or supply.

Sgt Godfrey said that Mr Longeran stated that he had gone to Thurles to collect the cannabis and that the other male owned the drugs.

Mr Lonergan had said that he owed a drug debt and had agreed to carry and hold the cannabis to repay it.

He was to receive some cannabis from the other male as part payment for his actions.

The other man had been detained but made no admissions, Sgt Godrey told the court.

In relation to the drugs seizure in Limerick, Mr Longeran had said that he was holding the greater amount for the other male and he had a smaller amount estimated at around €100 for himself.

The total amount found in Thurles came to 498grs, with an estimated street value of €9,960; the amount found in Garryowen came to 116.5grs, with an estimated value of €2,330.

Sgt Godfrey told Kenny Kerins, BL, for Mr Lonergan, that he understood the defendant’s role was to carry the drugs and that he was to travel back to Limerick by train.

The garda accepted Mr Lonergan had co-operated with the investigation and that Mr Lonergan owed a drugs debt.

Garda Godfrey accepted Mr Lonergan was a “heavy cannabis” user.

Mr Kerins, in mitigation, said that while the amount had been significant, he asked the court to be as lenient as possible.

“He didn’t try to flee. He put his hands up,” said Mr Kerins. The barrister said his client was only involved in order to pay a drug debt.

He also had a history of employment and was in a stable relationship.

Mr Kerins revealed that Mr Lonergan had a sibling who died tragically a number of years ago and that had a profound impact on his client.

“He didn’t deal with that and self-medicated through the use of alcohol,” said MrKerins.

But while Mr Lonergan had not taken alcohol for the past two years, he had used cannabis as a replacement.

Mr Kerins said it had not been a smart option to replace one problem with another.

He said Mr Lonergan was not “Mr Big”.

“This man was a pawn. It’s the way the drug business operates,” he told the judge.

However, Judge Martin did not accept that Mr Lonergan was a “mere pawn”, saying he was an “essential cog in the wheel” in a business that was causing havoc in society.

He accepted that the death of Mr Lonergan’s sibling had had a profound impact on him and that he had self-medicated with alcohol before turning to drugs.

“I note you are still using cannabis and there is no evidence you are going to wean yourself off drugs,” he told Mr Lonergan.

Judge Martin said that in Mr Lonergan’s favour was the fact that he had not done a “legger”and had co-operated with the gardaí, though he had tried to blame another person for the drugs.

Judge Martin also noted that Mr Lonergan had acknowledged his “stupidity”.

Judge Martin sentenced Mr Lonergan to four years in jail, with the final 18 months suspended, provided Mr Lonergan entered a bond of €100 to keep the peace, to co-operate with the prison services while in jail and on his release, to attend any meeting organised by the services and to provide urine samples whenever asked while in prison and on his release.

The charge of possession was taken into account.