Judgment: 2021-03-25 · Court archive

Court of Appeal upholds street-value test for €13,000 drug threshold

The court dismissed an appeal against a section 15A conviction, ruling that the statutory market value refers to the drug’s retail or street value, even where its value between dealers is lower.

Court of Appeal · [2021] IECA 86

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Stephen Glynn (Appellant)
What

The court dismissed an appeal against a section 15A conviction, ruling that the statutory market value refers to the drug’s retail or street value, even where its value between dealers is lower.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 12 March 2018

    The appeal court therefore upheld the interpretation used at trial and dismissed the appeal. It did not alter the conviction or sentence. The judgment records that Glynn was sentenced on 12 March 2018 to ten years’ imprisonment, following a prior section 15A conviction in 2008; it states that the sentence is subject to review after five years under the Act. The court accepted that he was handling the drugs for €200, was at the low end of the chain and cooperated with gardaí, but those matters did not change the statutory valuation question on appeal.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Glynn had pleaded guilty to possession for sale or supply under section 15. At trial, the only issue was whether the value met the section 15A threshold. He argued that the relevant value was the lower price in the market between dealers, where the drugs were being supplied. The trial judge rejected an application to dismiss the case and directed the jury to consider the retail or street value. The jury convicted him.

The Court of Appeal has dismissed Stephen Glynn’s appeal against his conviction for possessing heroin for sale or supply where its market value met the €13,000 threshold under section 15A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977.

The appeal concerned how that market value should be calculated. Gardaí found ten packages of heroin concealed in Glynn’s car during a routine patrol. The packages weighed 245.431 grams. Evidence at trial put their value at just under €10,000 between dealers, but at €34,360 if divided into individual street deals.

Glynn had pleaded guilty to possession for sale or supply under section 15. At trial, the only issue was whether the value met the section 15A threshold. He argued that the relevant value was the lower price in the market between dealers, where the drugs were being supplied. The trial judge rejected an application to dismiss the case and directed the jury to consider the retail or street value. The jury convicted him.

The Court of Appeal considered the meaning of “market value” in section 15A, which defines it as the price a controlled drug could be expected to fetch on the market for unlawful sale or supply. The court said the phrase “at any time while the drug or drugs are in the person’s possession” sets the period during which the value is assessed; it does not specify which market applies.

The court followed the approach in an earlier Court of Criminal Appeal decision, The People (DPP) v Heaphy, while examining the point in greater detail. It concluded that the statutory market value is the retail or street value of the controlled drug, rather than its value at the particular point in the supply chain where the accused possessed it. It also said this reading avoided a result in which a dealer higher in the chain could fall below the threshold while a later dealer handling the same drugs could exceed it.

The appeal court therefore upheld the interpretation used at trial and dismissed the appeal. It did not alter the conviction or sentence. The judgment records that Glynn was sentenced on 12 March 2018 to ten years’ imprisonment, following a prior section 15A conviction in 2008; it states that the sentence is subject to review after five years under the Act. The court accepted that he was handling the drugs for €200, was at the low end of the chain and cooperated with gardaí, but those matters did not change the statutory valuation question on appeal.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review