The Supreme Court has restored the acquittal of an anonymised man on charges concerning a postal package containing about €6,000 worth of methamphetamine, overturning an earlier order that he face a retrial.
Ms Justice Iseult O’Malley delivered judgment on July 11, 2025, in the appeal by J.S., a Polish national.
The package was intercepted in November 2018 and then delivered under Garda control to a house shared by J.S., his co-accused and three others. A Garda posing as a postman said J.S. identified himself as the person named on the package and signed for it using that name. J.S. disputed that account and said he had simply confirmed the address and signed his own name.
During a subsequent search, Gardaí found cannabis, amphetamine and drug-related items in J.S.'s bedroom. Before trial, he pleaded guilty to possession of cannabis and amphetamine with intent to supply.
His jury trial in January 2023 concerned only the methamphetamine package. The trial judge excluded evidence of the drugs found in his room and the related guilty pleas, finding its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value. The jury then acquitted J.S. on the package charges.
The DPP successfully appealed. The Court of Appeal held that the excluded evidence should have been admitted and ordered a retrial.
The Supreme Court agreed that the trial judge had made a legal error. It held that evidence of J.S.'s admitted drug dealing was significantly relevant to whether he knowingly accepted the package and intended to sell or supply its contents. The court also confirmed that such an evidential ruling can be challenged by the prosecution as a point of law.
However, O’Malley J stressed that a retrial does not automatically follow from identifying an error. J.S. had already been acquitted by a jury after a full trial, and the DPP had to show that reopening the case was in the interests of justice.
The court found no sufficiently strong public-interest factor. The prosecution was described as a relatively standard drugs case, with no identifiable victim and no issue of wider systemic significance. The retrial order was therefore set aside and J.S.'s acquittal affirmed.