The Court of Criminal Appeal has refused Aidan Finnegan and Alan Morrison leave to appeal their convictions for possessing heroin for sale or supply, finding there was evidence on which a properly directed jury could convict and no error in the trial judge’s directions that made the convictions unsafe.
The pair had each received a 12-year sentence, backdated to 4 September 2008. The judgment says the heroin had a street value of more than €43,000. Their separate applications for leave to appeal sentence were deferred until after this judgment.
The convictions arose from an alleged incident at Brook Lodge housing estate near Glanmire, County Cork. Garda evidence was that Finnegan retrieved a white bag from undergrowth and took out a blue container, which he handed to Morrison. Morrison opened it and put his hand inside before returning it; Finnegan put the bag back. Gardaí later recovered a sealed package from the container and identified its contents as heroin.
Both men denied going to the location or handling the bag, container or drugs. They said the Garda account was fabricated and challenged the lack of photographs and forensic testing, including fingerprint and DNA tests.
On appeal, they argued that the prosecution had not established possession, particularly the required intention to possess, and that the judge’s explanation to the jury was inadequate. The court applied the test for a direction: the case could be withdrawn from the jury only if the prosecution evidence, taken at its highest, could not support a conviction when properly considered. It held that the evidence of the men’s actions with the bag, container and package was sufficient for a jury to infer control and intention to possess. The judge had therefore been entitled to refuse a direction.
The court also rejected the challenge to the jury charge. It noted that the trial judge told jurors possession required some degree of control and described the prosecution’s account when answering the jury’s question about the meaning of possession. Defence counsel had accepted that response at trial and sought no further clarification. The appeal court found no material legal error in the charge as a whole.
Finnegan separately argued that the judge’s summing-up was biased and unfair to the defence. The court said the complaints had not been raised with the trial judge at the time and concluded that the charge, viewed as a whole, was fair and balanced. It refused leave to appeal against conviction for both applicants.