A Supreme Court decision has exposed more drug offenders to the risk of mandatory 10-year prison sentences.
The five-judge Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the prosecution in drugs cases does not have to prove that an accused knew, or ought to have known, that the market value of the drugs in their possession was €13,000 or more.
Having drugs with a market value of some €13,000 exposes an accused to a mandatory prison term of 10 years and the court's decision will have implications for many cases.
Mr Justice Joseph Finnegan made the ruling on a point of law arising from proceedings where a man was convicted of drug offences at Waterford Circuit Criminal Court in November 2004, and subsequently sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.
The man was charged under Section 15A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977, as amended by Section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1999. The man's counsel had argued that it was a necessary ingredient in the Section 15A offence that his client knew, or ought to have known the value of the drugs at the time of the offence.
That argument was rejected by the trial judge, but the Supreme Court was ultimately asked by the Court of Criminal Appeal to make a final determination on the point.
Delivering that decision, Mr Justice Finnegan said it would be "absurd" to construe Section 15A as requiring the prosecution to prove an accused had knowledge of the value of the drugs when the same section did not require the prosecution to prove that the accused knew that a package in their possession contained a controlled drug.