The Court of Appeal has quashed Noel Noonan’s conviction for drug offences and ordered a retrial, finding that hearsay evidence about a confidential report of drugs in his car unfairly affected the jury’s consideration of his defence.
The court upheld two grounds of appeal concerning evidence from Garda Dave Farragher that an inspector had told him there was confidential information that a large quantity of drugs was in the Toyota Corolla. The inspector did not give evidence.
The trial judge had allowed the jury to hear the account so they could consider the full circumstances of the search. But the Court of Appeal said the jury were later invited to treat the information as evidence that the drugs were in the car before it was stopped. That use breached the rule against hearsay, which bars evidence being used to prove the truth of an out-of-court statement in those circumstances.
The distinction mattered because the defence case was that drugs had been put in the car after it was taken onto a tow truck. The appeal court said the hearsay evidence directly conflicted with that account and had a significant prejudicial effect, creating unfairness in the jury’s consideration of the defence. It therefore upheld grounds 13 and 14 and quashed the conviction.
Noonan had been convicted by a jury after a nine-day trial in February 2023 of all counts on the indictment, including possession of controlled drugs worth more than €13,000 for sale or supply. The drugs found in the car were valued at €137,858. He had received a nine-year prison term, with the final six months suspended on conditions.
The court rejected the other appeal grounds addressed in the judgment. It found the initial search lawful in the circumstances, based on a common law power to check that the seized car was safe while stored at a private compound. It did not decide whether the search could also have been authorised under section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Challenges concerning the handling and identification of drug exhibits, incomplete testing, destruction of the car and CCTV footage also failed. The court said the exhibits issues were for the jury to assess. It described the loss of the car for possible defence analysis as a lost opportunity rather than the denial of a realistic defence. No legal requirement for a warning about the CCTV footage arose.
The court’s order was to quash the conviction and direct a retrial. The judgment does not determine the outcome of any retrial.