The Supreme Court ruled that prosecutors pursuing an offence under section 15A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 do not have to prove that an accused knew, or ought to have known, that drugs had a market value of €13,000 or more.
Mr Justice Finnegan delivered the judgment on 26 July 2007. The court was answering a certified point of law in an appeal by Ronan Power, who had been convicted after a trial at Waterford Circuit Criminal Court in November 2004 and sentenced to 10 years in prison. The judgment does not state whether the Supreme Court later altered that conviction or sentence.
Power’s appeal concerned the trial judge’s refusal to direct the jury that it had to be satisfied he knew or ought to have known the value of the drugs. The Court of Criminal Appeal had held in May 2006 that section 15A required the prosecution to establish the drugs’ value objectively, but not the accused’s knowledge of it. It certified the question for the Supreme Court as one of exceptional public importance.
Power argued that the prosecution must prove a guilty mind for every element of a statutory offence, including the €13,000 value threshold. The Director of Public Prosecutions accepted that section 15A created a new offence, but argued that it added the value threshold to conduct already covered by section 15: possession of controlled drugs for sale or supply. The DPP submitted that the prosecution had to prove possession, intent to sell or supply, and the drugs’ value, but not knowledge of that value.
The Supreme Court considered section 15A alongside related provisions in the Misuse of Drugs Acts and prior case law on possession. It concluded that section 15A did not require proof that the accused knew the package contained controlled drugs. Requiring the prosecution to prove the accused knew the drugs’ value would, the court said, create an inconsistent interpretation of provisions within the same legislative code.
The court answered the certified question narrowly: in a section 15A prosecution, the prosecution need not prove that the accused knew or ought to have known that the drugs’ market value reached €13,000. The judgment resolved that point of law; it does not report a separate order on Power’s conviction or sentence.