The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed Daniel Goulding’s appeal against his conviction for possession of cocaine for sale or supply, finding that the trial judge was entitled to leave the case to the jury.
The judgment, delivered by Denham J. on 29 July 2010, treated Goulding’s application for leave to appeal as the hearing of the appeal. The court’s decision addressed whether there was enough evidence of possession or control for the jury to consider the charge. It did not set aside the conviction or sentence.
Goulding was found guilty by the Dublin Circuit (Criminal) Court on 12 February 2009. He received a 10-year prison sentence on the charge of possessing drugs worth at least €13,000 for sale or supply, backdated to 11 June 2007. A separate possession-for-supply count was taken into consideration.
The prosecution evidence was that, on 14 June 2006, Michael Barry saw a passenger door open slightly on a silver Renault Laguna in a queue approaching a Garda checkpoint near Mulhuddart, in the direction of Clonee. Barry said a package was thrown from the car. He alerted Gardaí at the checkpoint, and a Garda found a package of cocaine near a telephone pole at the location Barry identified. Its approximate value was €70,000. Goulding was in the front passenger seat; his brother was driving. Both denied knowledge of the package when questioned.
On appeal, Goulding argued that the evidence did not establish that he had possessed or controlled the package. His counsel pointed to Barry’s evidence that he could not be sure who threw it, and to differing descriptions of the package. The court considered those matters alongside the evidence that the passenger door opened only a small amount, the package was thrown from that side of the car, and Goulding denied ever seeing it.
The court held that the prosecution evidence was not so tenuous that the judge had to stop the case. Its strength depended on credibility and other matters for the jury, and there was at least one rational view of the evidence on which a properly directed jury could find Goulding guilty. The jury had also been redirected on aiding and abetting: it could not convict on that basis if it had a reasonable possibility that the driver threw the package, unless it was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Goulding knowingly and intentionally assisted him.
The court concluded that the trial judge was entitled to leave the matter to the jury and dismissed the appeal.