|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
High Court of Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> High Court of Ireland Decisions >> The Director of Public Prosecutions v Buckley  IEHC 150 (08 May 2007)
Cite as:  3 IR 745,  IEHC 150
[New search] [Printable version] [Help]
Judgment Title: The Director of Public Prosecutions v Buckley
Composition of Court: Charleton J.
Judgment by: Charleton J.
Status of Judgment: Approved
Neutral Citation Number:  IEHC 150
THE HIGH COURT 2006 1638SSIN THE MATTER OF SECTION 52(1) OF THE COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL) PROVISIONS) ACT, 1961
THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
DEFENDANTJUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Charleton delivered on 8th day of May, 2007
1. The defendant was charged with one offence before Judge Constantine O’Leary in Cork. This alleged that on 31st January, 2005 at Hollyhill, in the city of Cork, he had cannabis resin in his possession contrary to ss. 3 and 27 (as amended by s. 6 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1984) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1977. Having part heard this case in May, 2005, the learned District Judge referred a question for the opinion of the High Court in the following terms:-
2. This question was raised as a result of a submission by the defending solicitor at the close of the prosecution case. Mr. Joseph Cuddigan submitted that there was no case for the defendant to answer because the Director of Public Prosecutions had failed to adduce into evidence a certificate of analysis that the substance found on the defendant was cannabis. For the purpose of this procedure, the learned District Judge has found a number of facts, to which I now turn.
3. The defendant was stopped on the street on the 26th May, 2005 in Ardcullen area of Hollyhill in the City of Cork by two members of An Garda Síochána. They searched the defendant according to the terms of s. 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1977, as amended, and as a result of this they found a small quantity of a brown substance, which was believed to be cannabis, in the defendant’s back trouser pocket. This substance was shown to the defendant and he was cautioned that he was not obliged to say anything. Mr. Buckley was invited to the Garda Station for the purpose of a thorough search and, when he declined, he was arrested under s. 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1977, as amended. After being checked into Gurranebraher Garda Station under the Criminal Justice Act, 1984 (Treatment of Persons in Custody in Garda Síochána stations) Regulations, 1987, a further search took place. The Gardaí found a knife in one Mr. Buckley’s pockets and an item that has been described as a “hash pipe” and a balaclava. After caution, Mr. Buckley admitted that the brown substance was cannabis and he added that it was for his own use. He also accepted that the balaclava, the pipe and the knife were his property. Mr. Buckley was then released from custody but the relevant items were kept for the purpose of a prosecution. The cannabis was sent for analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory, but it would seem that it never arrived back.
Consultative Case Stated
4. I am satisfied that the question asked by the judge is both sensible and pertinent. If, however, I baldly answer it without reference to the other facts which he has found I may be in danger of misleading him as to the appropriate law. It seems to me that the relationship between the District Court and the High Court in these cases is similar to that expressed by Finlay C.J. in Dublin Corporation v. Ashley  I.R. 781, in relation to a consultative case stated from the Circuit Court to the Supreme Court, where this opinion was expressed at 785:-
6. For this purpose, I accept that the trial judge has an obligation to have regard to relevant evidence, since the purpose of the criminal trial is to enquire as to whether the prosecution have adduced sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime. It has been argued, and I agree, that the public interest requires the acquittal of the innocent and, where the prosecution have discharged the burden and standard of proof, the conviction of the guilty.
7. The issue before the trial judge at direction stage, on the close of the prosecution case, whether he or she is sitting with the jury or is the sole tribunal of fact, is whether the prosecution have adduced sufficient evidence which might enable a safe conviction to occur on a full consideration of that evidence by the tribunal of fact. In The People (The Director of Public Prosecutions) v. O’Shea  I.L.R.M. 592, Finlay P. had this to say at 594:-
(2) The difficulty arises where there is some evidence but it is of a tenuous character, for example because of inherent weakness or vagueness or because it is inconsistent with other evidence.
(a) Where the judge comes to the conclusion that the prosecution evidence, taken at its highest, is such that a jury properly directed could not properly convict upon it, it is his duty, upon a submission being made, to stop the case.
(b) Where however the prosecution evidence is such that its strength or weakness depends on the view to be taken of a witness’s reliability, or other matters which are generally speaking within the province of the jury and where on one possible view of the facts there is evidence upon which the jury could properly come to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty, then the judge should allow the matter to be tried by the jury.”
9. Issues of credibility are therefore not part of the trial judge’s function at the direction stage of a criminal trial. Issues as to the absence of evidence clearly are. This case is a good example of that principle and I therefore now turn to the question posed by the learned District Judge.
Proof of a Controlled Drug
10. The Misuse of Drugs Act, 1977 did not allow for the proof of the presence of the controlled drug, an essential element of the charge, by any other means than the calling of oral evidence. This meant that for the seven years prior to the implementation of the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1984, a forensic scientist had to be called in evidence to give the results of the analysis of the substance in question. In Charleton Controlled Drugs and The Criminal Law (Dublin, 1986) the following passage appears at page 93:-
“… it is apparent that the statements of the accused in this case, either orally to the police officer or when reduced to writing, was sufficient to provide prima facie evidence of the nature of the substance which had been in their possession. One of them, Proctor, as I have indicated, gave evidence, but what I have said about his statement to the police and the fact that he was found guilty by the jury indicates quite clearly that the jury disbelieved his explanation that it was flour and believed his earlier statement to the police that he knew it was heroin.
The court is of the view that the statements of the accused provide, having regard to the circumstances of this case, prima facie evidence of the identity of the substance. As that is the only point on the appeals against conviction, the appeals against conviction are accordingly dismissed.”
13. In R. v. Bagshaw  Crim. L.R. 433, an issue as to whether an untested substance was or was not cannabis was resolved by the prosecution adjourning the case and arranging for a test to be carried out at a laboratory next to the court. Defence counsel then admitted that the drug was cannabis resin. In City of Sunderland v. Dawson  EWHC 2796, the issue was whether a charge of selling alcohol to an underage person was made out. The defence submission at the close of the prosecution case was that there had been no proof that the bottle sold in the off-licence to the child contained anything other than coloured water and consequently that there was a fatal absence of a certificate of analysis to show that it was alcohol. Thomas L.J. stated:-
14. In considering, at the close of the prosecution case, whether sufficient evidence has been adduced to allow the case to proceed to the defence case, or to submissions, a trial judge should be concerned to see whether the proofs necessary to make out the charge have been adduced in evidence. At that stage, the trial judge is not concerned with issues of credibility or with sufficiency of proof but with the technical nature of the elements of the offence and whether these have been reflected in evidence by proof. There can be exceptional cases where the nature of a necessary proof is found to be so tenuous that a trial judge would be compelled to make a conclusion that any consequent conviction would be unsafe. In those very rare cases the issue as to conviction might be withdrawn from the jury, or from the judge acting as the tribunal of fact.
15. Cases proceed on the basis of direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. Here, there was both. The admission by the accused that he was in possession of cannabis constituted an admission against interest and was therefore admissible against him. A piece of direct evidence should never be divorced from its factual background. Instead, it should be considered in the light of all the other relevant evidence in the case. The possession of a pipe and a knife could therefore be weighed with the admission to provide it with context.
16. In considering an application for a direction the court should not weigh the evidence but simply consider whether it is present or not. The admission, in this context, seems to me to be no different to a statement by someone who is familiar with the qualities of an item in question. If, therefore, on the charge of serving alcohol after hours in a licensed premises, the smell and appearance of beer and wine before customers can, in the ordinary knowledge of people in the community, provide sufficient evidence that alcohol, as opposed to lime cordial or cranberry juice, was being served. The qualities of cannabis are not now so unusual as to put it in a different category so that expert evidence of its presence is always required. An accused who admits a substance is cannabis can be, but not necessarily must be, relied on to know what he is talking about.
17. It should be borne in mind, however, that if the prosecution choose to weaken their case by not adducing a certificate of analysis in circumstances where the nature of the substance is at the core of the charge, that applications to dismiss the charge may be expected. I would advise, that in all the circumstances of the case, that there was sufficient prima facie proof through the admission of the accused, coupled with the pipe and the knife, that the substance in his back trouser pocket was the relevant controlled drug.
18. Finally, there have been incidents of trickery in Dublin and in other cities, whereby a substance looking like a controlled drug, such as cocaine or heroin, is sold at mass gatherings such as rock concerts. The customers have sometimes later found, to their benefit, and to their monetary cost, that what they have purchased is cleaning powder. When, therefore, the judge or jury are considering the ultimate issue as to whether the prosecution has proved their case beyond reasonable doubt, this possibility should be borne in mind. When the prosecution adduces evidence only of an admission, the issue for the judge, at direction stage, is whether the circumstances show that the accused can be relied on to have sufficient knowledge to allow that admission to be safely relied on; The People (The Director of Public Prosecutions) v. McHugh  1 I.R. 352. When the issue of guilt is being considered, that issue must be tested in the light of the burden and standard of proof in criminal cases.