The Court of Criminal Appeal rejected Perry Wharrie’s challenges to his convictions for possession of cocaine, possession for sale or supply, and possession for sale or supply of drugs valued above €13,000. The court said it would next consider the sentence imposed on him; the supplied judgment ends before that decision.
Wharrie was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Criminal Court on 22 July 2008, after a 41-day trial. The charges arose from an attempted importation of about 1,554 kilograms of cocaine from Venezuela. The prosecution alleged Wharrie was part of a joint enterprise to receive the drugs at Dunlough Bay, near Mizen Head. Its case did not allege that he was aboard either boat involved.
The appeal court dismissed Wharrie’s argument that a Sunday World opinion column published during the trial created a risk of an unfair trial. It noted the article appeared in a narrow column on an inside opinion page, seven weeks before the jury’s verdict, and that there was no evidence any juror had read it. The court found the trial judge had not clearly misused his discretion by refusing to discharge the jury.
The court also upheld the trial judge’s decisions on evidence from a search warrant and DNA testing. It said the judge was entitled to find that the peace commissioner had properly considered the information supporting the warrant. Although the package containing a flossing tool was not sealed during part of its handling, the court accepted the trial judge’s finding that the prosecution had ruled out contamination or deliberate tampering to the required standard.
Other grounds concerned evidence that Wharrie had travelled under the name Andrew Woodcraft, disputed CCTV footage, unproved details in the prosecution opening, and whether the evidence could establish possession through a joint enterprise. The appeal court found no basis to overturn the trial judge’s rulings. It said the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to leave the case to the jury and that constructive possession could arise where a person participated in a scheme to possess drugs through others.
The court also rejected an argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that the sale or supply offences required an intention to supply drugs within Ireland. It relied on earlier authority holding that domestic supply was not an essential element. The court concluded that each ground against conviction failed, while leaving the sentence issue for the next part of its judgment.