The Court of Criminal Appeal refused an application for leave to appeal a conviction for possessing cannabis with intent to supply, finding no legal error in the trial and sufficient evidence for the jury’s verdict.
The applicant had been convicted by a jury at Tralee in July 2009 of possessing a controlled drug for the purpose of selling or otherwise supplying it. He had pleaded guilty to possessing cannabis and cultivating cannabis plants. At sentencing, he received concurrent prison terms of three years on the supply offence and two years on the cultivation offence; the possession count was taken into consideration.
The appeal focused on whether the trial judge’s directions fairly addressed the amount of cannabis present on the date charged, inconsistencies in Garda evidence about the plants’ likely yield and value, and the applicant’s claim that he grew cannabis for his own use to manage pain. He also argued that confusion between the English word “ounce” and the Dutch measurement “ons” had distorted estimates of his intended personal supply.
The Court of Criminal Appeal said the prosecution evidence and the applicant’s admissions established possession of 80 cannabis plants. It said the jury could consider the plants, 30 to 50 empty resealable bags found in a drawer, and the scale and layout of the growing operation when deciding whether the cannabis was intended for immediate personal use. The court noted that the applicant said he smoked about half an ounce a week and expected to harvest 20 to 30 ounces, while a Garda witness gave higher yield estimates. It held that the yield question was supported by oral and photographic evidence and was for the jury to decide.
The court rejected the measurement argument, finding the applicant had not shown that he persistently confused “ounce” with “ons” during the trial or that any alleged error materially prejudiced him. It also concluded the trial judge’s directions and summary of the evidence were clear, fair and balanced. Although the court said the judge should preferably have heard lawyers’ submissions before answering the jury’s questions, it found the applicant was not prejudiced. The judge later clarified that supply included giving cannabis without payment.
The court held that no reasonable jury, properly directed, would have been unable to convict on the evidence. It refused leave to appeal. The judgment does not disturb the convictions or sentences imposed at trial.