The Court of Criminal Appeal refused an application by Oluwamuyiwa Akinola challenging his convictions for drug offences, finding that the trial judge had adequately directed the jury on the prosecution’s burden of proof.
The appeal was confined to whether the jury had been told that, once the defence under section 29(2)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 was raised, the prosecution had to disprove it beyond reasonable doubt. The court said the trial judge’s later direction made clear that the prosecution had to prove Akinola either knew the package contained a controlled drug or had reasonable grounds for suspecting that it did.
The convictions followed a controlled delivery in Waterford in July 2006. A parcel addressed to Gasi Samsi was intercepted at Dublin Airport. It contained 53 video cassettes, each found to contain a small bag of white powder. Random testing of 15 bags established that they contained cocaine; the cocaine concentration was not determined.
At the delivery address, a detective posing as a courier handed the parcel to Akinola after he produced the matching airway bill number and signed for it as Gasi Samsi. Gardaí stopped a taxi as Akinola was leaving with the parcel. Evidence at trial was that he made spontaneous remarks referring to drugs and to a “bad man”. During later interviews, he made no admissions and said he understood the package contained pirated videos and had been instructed to take it to two men in Poleberry.
A jury convicted Akinola on three counts: possession for supply under two statutory provisions, and possession of controlled drugs. In April 2008, the Circuit Criminal Court sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment, allowing for time spent in custody awaiting trial. The trial judge said twelve years would otherwise have been appropriate, but took account of personal and mitigating circumstances.
On appeal, the court noted that defence counsel had not asked the trial judge to clarify the prosecution’s burden after the initial charge or after the recharge. The court said that failure could prevent an accused from later relying on the alleged misdirection, and found no exceptional circumstances to permit the point to be pursued. It nevertheless considered the legal issue and concluded that the recharge was correct: it reaffirmed the prosecution’s continuing burden to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and specifically addressed knowledge or reasonable grounds for suspicion. The application was therefore refused.