The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed Adrian Boyle’s appeal against his convictions for possessing cocaine for sale or supply, including an offence involving drugs valued at €13,000 or more. It held that the evidence was sufficient to leave the question of aiding and abetting to the jury. The court did not hear the appeal concerning his sentence at this stage.
Boyle had been tried in the Circuit Criminal Court at Trim, County Meath, in January 2008 on charges relating to cocaine found at an address in Athboy on 5 August 2006. Three counts concerned drugs in a shed; two concerned drugs in a container behind it. The trial judge directed an acquittal on the personal-possession count. The jury acquitted Boyle on the two counts concerning the container, but by a 10–2 majority convicted him on two counts concerning cocaine in the shed: possession for sale or supply, and possession for sale or supply where the value was at least €13,000. He received an eight-year sentence on the latter count; no sentence was imposed on the other conviction.
Boyle argued that the acquittal on the personal-possession count meant the jury could not validly convict him of possessing the same drugs for supply. The appeal court rejected that argument. It said the trial judge had directed the acquittal because the quantity was not small enough to fall within the personal-use offence, not because there was insufficient evidence that Boyle possessed the drugs.
The court considered whether evidence of possession and assistance was sufficient to go to the jury. Gardaí found cocaine and drug-handling equipment in the shed. Boyle was there with two other men, was a regular visitor and lawful occupier, and had opened the shed doors for the others, according to evidence the jury could accept. No drugs were found on him, and the court noted there was no direct evidence connecting him to actual possession or control of the items.
The court said the jury could consider the circumstances together, including the equipment and drugs in the shed, the locked doors, Boyle’s accounts in interviews and whether he had tried to flee. Mere presence or opening a door would not by itself establish aiding or abetting; the prosecution had to prove intentional assistance or encouragement with knowledge of the criminal activity. The court concluded that the circumstantial evidence was enough to leave that issue to the jury, and that the trial judge was entitled to refuse an acquittal direction.
Boyle’s written appeal submissions also challenged the valuation evidence. The court said there was evidence of value before the trial court and dismissed that ground. It treated the application for leave to appeal as the hearing of the conviction appeal and dismissed it. The sentence issue remained for a later oral hearing.