The Supreme Court has ruled that a trial judge did not misdirect the jury in a drugs case involving a prison officer who said he acted under threats. The Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision, but had not yet made a final order on the consequences, which could include reinstating the conviction.
Trevor Gleeson was arrested in Kildare town on 22 December 2009 after gardaí saw him throw a bag of drugs from his car. He said he had been pressured by criminals inside Midlands Prison and their associates outside it to bring drugs to inmates, and that he intended to dump the drugs rather than take them into the prison.
A jury convicted him of simple possession in December 2012. It disagreed on charges of possession for supply. A later trial on those charges ended when the jury was discharged following late disclosure of supermarket video footage. Gleeson was not tried again on those counts. He received an 18-month prison sentence, suspended for three years.
The Court of Appeal overturned the simple-possession conviction, finding that the jury should have been directed to consider Gleeson’s circumstances as a prison officer when assessing duress. The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed to the Supreme Court on the standards for judging a duress claim.
In a judgment delivered by Mr Justice Peter Charleton on 1 November 2018, the Supreme Court said duress requires both a genuine belief in the threat and an objective assessment of whether the threat and the accused’s response were reasonable. It said the assessment may account for relevant fixed and permanent characteristics, such as age, sex or serious illness, while still requiring reasonable firmness and courage. A person who has a reasonable lawful way to avoid the crime, including seeking help from authorities, must take it.
The Court found no relevant personal characteristic had been pleaded or argued in Gleeson’s case. His work as a prison officer and the circumstances in which he said threats were made did not, by themselves, amount to such a characteristic. The trial judge had directed the jury to take account of his age and gender, which the Supreme Court said was appropriate on the evidence and arguments before the court.
The Court also said the guilty verdicts on simple possession amounted to a finding that Gleeson had a reasonable opportunity to avoid the offences but did not take it. It concluded that the trial judge had not misdirected the jury and reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision. The final order was deferred pending discussion with counsel; the judgment said it could include reinstating Gleeson’s convictions.