The Court of Appeal has dismissed Gary Hanley’s appeal against his conviction for possessing cannabis resin and possessing it for sale or supply. It ruled that the evidence was sufficient for the trial judge to let the jury decide the case.
Hanley was convicted on 13 December 2011 and sentenced to six years in prison, with the final two years suspended. His appeal challenged the trial judge’s refusal to withdraw the case from the jury after the defence argued there was no case to answer.
The evidence arose from a search of a wheelie bin in the central courtyard of the Alfie Byrne apartment complex on 10 April 2009. Garda Rowe found a zipped holdall containing five bars of cannabis resin in a heavy-duty plastic bag, along with an empty similar bag, an empty yellow shopping bag and a shirt. The cannabis was deemed to be worth €7,310.40.
Hanley and others were about 10 to 15 metres from the bin. A fingerprint matching Hanley’s was found on the inside flap of the plastic bag that had held the cannabis. The fingerprint expert said it was possible the print had been left by someone moving the flap aside, and that there was no scientific way to establish when it had been placed there.
For Hanley, counsel argued that the print and surrounding circumstances allowed an innocent explanation: he could have touched the bag while rummaging in the bin. The prosecution disputed that account, noting there were no other fingerprints from Hanley on the items in the zipped holdall and that the bag was transparent, so its contents could be seen without opening it.
The appeal court said the evidence established that Hanley’s fingerprint had contacted the sealed bag while the cannabis was inside it. It considered his presence near the bin supporting evidence, though “in itself not very strong”. The court also said it was highly unlikely that a valuable commodity would have been left in the bin for long or without protection.
The court concluded that the jury could reasonably accept the prosecution’s inferences. It therefore held that the trial judge was correct to allow the case to go to the jury and dismissed the appeal. The judgment addressed that no-case-to-answer challenge; it did not rehear the trial or replace the jury’s verdict.