The Court of Appeal has allowed a prosecution appeal against the dismissal of five cannabis-related charges against D.T., finding that the trial judge applied the wrong test when deciding whether the case could proceed.
The charges arose from a search of Apartment 18 at Prospect Hill Apartments, Finglas, on 18 November 2022. Gardaí found D.T. and two other people in an upstairs kitchen/living room, where they reported seeing equipment and materials associated with making cannabis sweets. They also found cannabis in that room and discovered cannabis-growing setups in an upstairs hot-press and a downstairs room.
D.T. faced ten counts in total. On 10 April 2024, the Circuit Court dismissed Counts 6 to 10, covering cultivation and possession allegations connected to the two grow houses. The ruling left Counts 1 to 5, concerning alleged possession of cannabis and cannabis sweets in the kitchen/living room, outside the dismissal. The Court of Appeal clarified that the prosecution’s appeal covered all five dismissed counts.
The defence argued that there was no evidence D.T. was more than a visitor, and pointed to the absence of fingerprint or forensic evidence linking him to the items or grow houses. It also challenged the use of statutory inferences based on his responses, or lack of responses, when Gardaí asked him to account for his presence and for objects found at the property.
The Court of Appeal said the trial judge had to assess the proposed prosecution evidence at its highest and consider the statutory inference provisions when deciding whether the charges should be dismissed. The judge did not have to decide whether a jury would ultimately draw those inferences or convict; those questions remained for trial. The court found the judge had effectively failed to take the inference provisions properly into account.
The appeal court also pointed to the evidence that D.T.’s phone and a bank card bearing his name were found in one area, while his passport was found above a pot of green material in another. Along with the activity visible in the living room and the growing operation elsewhere in the apartment, the court said this evidence could support an inference of more than a temporary connection to the premises.
The court allowed the appeal, overturning the dismissal of Counts 6 to 10. It did not decide D.T.’s guilt; the charges are to proceed to trial.