The Supreme Court has ruled that all 10 drug charges against an accused identified as DT can proceed to trial following a Garda search of a Dublin apartment in November 2022.
Five of the charges had previously been dismissed by Judge Martin Nolan in Dublin Circuit Criminal Court because of insufficient evidence connecting DT to cannabis grow areas in separate rooms. The Court of Appeal restored those charges, and the Supreme Court has now affirmed that decision.
The ruling does not determine DT's guilt. Mr Justice Peter Charleton repeatedly stressed that the prosecution allegations remain unproved and that any eventual findings of fact are for a jury.
The prosecution alleges that Gardaí found DT and two other people in an apartment containing what appeared to be a cannabis-production operation. In the kitchen-living area were thousands of green gummy bears said to contain cannabis, dried cannabis, moulds, syringes and a pot containing a green gelatinous substance. DT's phone and bank card were found there, while his passport was found above the stovetop.
Separate areas contained cannabis plants and cultivation equipment. No fingerprint or other forensic evidence linked DT directly to those grow locations.
The Supreme Court held that possession requires both control and knowledge. Mere presence where drugs are found is not enough, and knowledge that someone else possesses contraband does not by itself amount to possession.
However, the court found that the prosecution's proposed evidence, taken at its highest at this preliminary stage, could permit a jury to infer participation in a common operation involving possession and cultivation.
The court also clarified the use of Garda interview inferences. Prosecutors cannot prove possession simply by asking an accused to account for alleged possession and relying on silence. But a properly administered request to explain an accused's presence at premises connected with alleged offending may support other evidence, though such an inference cannot be the sole or main basis for conviction.
The Court of Appeal order was therefore affirmed and the full indictment remains for trial.