The Court of Criminal Appeal yesterday overturned the conviction of Mr Vincent Donegan, a son of former minister for defence Mr Patrick Donegan, for possession of cannabis for supply.
The three-judge court also decided that Mr Donegan (35), of Monasterboice, Co Louth, because he has served 18 months of a six-year prison sentence and all the circumstances of the case, will not have to face a new trial on the drugs charge.
Mr Donegan was convicted at Dundalk Circuit Court on January 10th, 1997, of having cannabis worth about £300,000 for supply at Monasterboice on May 28th, 1995.
Last July, the Court of Criminal Appeal granted Mr Donegan bail pending the hearing of his appeal against conviction and sentence.
In the course of his trial, Mr Donegan said he had found the drugs in a shed at the back of the Monasterboice Inn when he burst a box with a tractor. He said he had put the drugs in plastic bags, panicked and removed the drugs.
Presenting the appeal yesterday, Mr Michael O'Higgins, for Mr Donegan, said the trial judge was wrong to allow what was a primary issue of law regarding the meaning of "possession" to go before the jury as a contest between prosecution and defence.
This had led to a problem in the jury room and to the jury returning to seek guidance on the meaning of "possession".
Mr Justice Lynch said the first ground of Mr Donegan's appeal was that the trial judge did not give the jury the guidance which it required in the circumstances.
The court concluded the jury appeared to have been under a misapprehension regarding their task and had difficulty in understanding what was the law.
Counsel for each side at the trial had put before the jury a version of events which raised issues of law rather than issues of fact in the sense that Mr Donegan accepted he had brought the drugs to a certain place but put up a defence that he did not have a guilty mind. The jury had come back from their deliberations and asked for guidance.
The jury foreman had said to the trial judge: "The person himself may be doing, taking the bags out of the car and putting them away and doing but not really meaning to do it, but doing it, and would he be in possession?"
Mr Justice Lynch said the trial judge had correctly said he did not wish to get into a discussion on the merits or demerits of the case.
But, unfortunately, he did not give any guidance on the law relating to the meaning of "possession" which would have been the appropriate thing to do.
Juries were constantly being told that they must take the law from the judge while they decided the facts but that had not happened in this case, Mr Justice Lynch said.
Having regard to the "run" of the case and particularly the questions asked by the jury, he said the Court of Criminal Appeal had come to the conclusion that the conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory and would quash it.
In relation to the question of a retrial, Mr Justice Lynch said the court was bearing in mind that Mr Donegan had been in prison for almost 18 months and, having regard to all the facts, he would not order a retrial.