The Court of Criminal Appeal quashed Ian Ebbs’s convictions for having a baton and a samurai sword in a public place, but upheld his conviction involving a stun gun after finding that the jury’s verdict on that count would not have changed with a correct legal direction.
Mr Ebbs had been convicted in Wicklow Circuit Court in July 2008 on three counts under section 9(4) of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act 1990. He received a suspended 18-month sentence. The Court of Criminal Appeal delivered judgment on 3 March 2011.
The charges arose from a traffic stop on Main Street, Bray, at about 4am on 22 October 2006. Garda evidence was that Mr Ebbs, who was driving a car that was not registered to him, reached into its glove compartment during his arrest and took out and activated an object that proved to be a stun gun. A baton was found in the glove compartment and a samurai sword in the boot. Garda Ennis said he told gardaí: “Bray is a dangerous place.” The stun-gun conviction was unanimous; the other two convictions were by majority verdict. No defence evidence was called.
The appeal court held that the trial judge was wrong to tell the jury that the prosecution did not have to prove Mr Ebbs knew the articles were with him. The court said the offence requires proof of the necessary mental element, including knowledge of the item’s existence and an intention to have it. That knowledge is part of proving possession; it is not displaced by the statutory defence of lawful authority or reasonable excuse.
The court rejected a separate challenge to the admission of Mr Ebbs’s remark about Bray. Although it had not been recorded in a garda notebook or offered for his signature, the court said the trial judge had discretion to admit it and was entitled to do so in the circumstances.
For the stun gun, the evidence was that Mr Ebbs took it from the glove compartment and activated it. The court said that, if the jury accepted this evidence, a proper direction on knowledge and intent could not have changed the verdict. It therefore applied the proviso in section 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1993 and affirmed that conviction, concluding that no miscarriage of justice had occurred.
For the baton and sword, the court considered it just possible that the jury had doubts about whether Mr Ebbs was responsible for those items. It quashed both convictions, “not without some hesitation.” The judgment does not state the effect of the appeal on the suspended sentence.