Report on Mandatory Sentences - Law Reform Commission

(ii)
quashing of the appellant’s conviction should be a wake-up call to those charged with furnishing
the necessary proofs in trials for s.15A and s.15B offences.” 28
The People (DPP) v Finnamore
4.21 The process by which market value is determined was considered by the Court of Criminal
Appeal in the earlier case of The People (DPP) v Finnamore. 29 The applicant had been charged with an
offence under section 15A when he was found in possession of a number of bags in which amphetamine
was detected. The forensic evidence was that tests had been carried out on one of 48 tape-bound plastic
packs and a sample of loose white powder found in another bag. The evidence was that amphetamine
was the “main component” in the plastic pack and a “major component” of the loose white powder.
Further tests were carried out on 16 of the 48 packs and a sample of the loose white powder. The
evidence was that there was a “presence of amphetamine”. At no point was the purity of the
amphetamine analysed.
4.22 The applicant argued that it was not reasonable to ask the jury to accept that on the basis of an
analysis of a small portion of the drugs found, all the drugs were, beyond a reasonable doubt, the same.
The Court of Criminal Appeal held:
“The question as to what is or is not sufficient analysis, in terms of amount, or the purity of the
drugs, must depend on the circumstances of each case. There is no principle or rule of law
known to this court which requires that in each and every case, every package must inevitably be
individually analysed before a conviction can be considered safe.” 30
Thus it would appear that an analysis need not be carried out on every pack found in every case. This
will, however, depend very much on the circumstances of the particular case. In Finnamore, for instance,
the Court appeared to attach weight to the fact that the 48 packs had been “wrapped in a substantially
identical manner” and placed together while the loose powder was found “without any apparent division or
distinction between what was taken for analysis and the remainder of the bulk”. The Court noted,
however, that in a different case, a more extensive analysis might be required.
4.23 In The People (DPP) v Connolly, 31 the Supreme Court distinguished Finnamore on the ground
that the forensic evidence in Finnamore was that amphetamine was the “main” or “major” component in
the samples taken.
(iii)
Mens Rea
4.24 The Misuse of Drugs Act 1977, as amended, provides that mens rea regarding the value of the
drugs involved is not necessary. 32 This ensures that the range of actors in the drugs supply chain may be
found guilty of an offence under section 15A or section 15B. At one end of the scale, there are the highlevel
offenders who undoubtedly know the approximate value of the controlled drugs while, at the other
end of the scale, there are the low-level offenders who are less likely to know the value of the drugs
(e)
Intent to Sell or Supply
4.25 The fourth element of an offence under section 15A (but not section 15B) is that the possession
must be motivated by an intention to sell or supply the controlled drugs. However, it is rarely, if ever,
necessary for the prosecution to prove intention as section 15A(2) contains a reverse onus provision.
28
29
30
31
32
O’Malley “Further Observations on DPP v Connolly (Part 1 of 3)” 22 February 2011. Available at:
www.extempore.ie/2011/02/22/further-observations-on-dpp-v-connolly-part-1-of-3/ [Last accessed: 22 May
2013].
The People (DPP) v Finnamore [2008] IECCA 99.
Ibid.
The People (DPP) v Connolly [2011] IESC 6.
See: section 15A(3A) and section 15B(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977.
132