The Court of Appeal has dismissed Maciej Masznicz’s appeal against jury convictions for drug and firearms offences arising from a search of a property in County Kerry in February 2015. The court said the trial judge’s failure to explain the legal meaning of possession to the jury was erroneous in principle, but concluded that the appeal did not meet the threshold for raising points that had not been pursued at trial.
Mr Masznicz had pleaded guilty to simple possession of cannabis. A jury convicted him on the remaining counts: possession of cannabis and methylamphetamine for sale or supply, possession of methylamphetamine, possession of controlled drugs valued at €13,000 or more for sale or supply, and possession of an unauthorised stun gun. He received sentences in July 2019 and appealed those jury convictions.
The prosecution case concerned a search on 18 February 2015 at a farmhouse and outbuildings where Mr Masznicz lived and ran a car restoration and dismantling business. Gardaí found cannabis and methylamphetamine in two sheds, cannabis wraps in the farmhouse, and a stun gun in a press. The drugs were valued at a combined €39,880. The prosecution also relied on CCTV evidence and a phone message translated as asking Mr Masznicz to give cannabis to another person, with money to follow. Mr Masznicz denied knowing about the drugs in the sheds and disputed evidence about access, a key to one shed and CCTV coverage. He said the message’s reference to money concerned fuel he had lent.
On appeal, he argued that the jury had not been properly directed on possession, circumstantial evidence and the rule requiring jurors to resolve two possible views in his favour unless guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt. He also argued that no properly directed jury could have convicted. The prosecution said the case had turned chiefly on the credibility of witnesses and Mr Masznicz’s account, and noted that trial counsel had not objected to the charge or requested further directions.
The Court of Appeal said the omission of a judicial explanation of possession was a real deficiency. However, it considered it significant that no requisition had been made after the charge, and that defence counsel had endorsed the explanation of possession given by prosecuting counsel in opening. The court found the jury had also been told to decide the case on the evidence, draw inferences but not speculate, and apply the two-views rule. It was not persuaded those directions were necessarily inadequate in the circumstances.
The court found no basis to conclude that a fundamental injustice may have occurred, and said the unraised points could not appropriately be relied on in the appeal. It also rejected the challenge to the verdicts: the evidence was capable of supporting findings of control and knowledge, and it could not be said there was no evidence supporting the convictions. The appeal was dismissed. The judgment addresses the convictions appealed; it does not set out a fresh sentencing order.