CONVICTION QUASHED IN MIX-UP OVER `POSSESSION'

THE conviction of Vincent Donegan son of former Defence Minister
Patrick Donegan for possessing cannabis for the purpose of supply was
quashed by the Court of Criminal Appeal yesterday.

Mr Donegan (35), of Monasterboice, Co Louth, had served 18 months of a
six-year sentence before being granted bail in July 1998 pending the
hearing of his appeal.

The Court of Criminal Appeal also decided that Mr Donegan will not
have to face a new trial.

He was convicted at Dundalk Circuit Court on January 10, 1997 for
having cannabis worth about pounds 300,000 for supply at Monasterboice
on May 28, 1995.

Mr Donegan told a jury at his trial that he had found the drugs in a
shed at the back of Monasterboice Inn when he burst a box with a
tractor. He said he had put the drugs in plastic bags, had panicked
and had removed the drugs.

Michael O'Higgins BL, for Mr Donegan, said the trial judge was wrong
to leave to the jury the primary issue of law (of the meaning of
``possession'') as a matter of a contest between prosecuting and
defence counsels.

This had led to a problem in the jury room and the jury returning to
ask for guidance on the meaning of ``possession''.

Mr Justice Kevin Lynch, giving the decision of the Court of Criminal
Appeal, said the first ground of Mr Donegan's appeal was that the
trial judge did not give the jury the guidance which in the
circumstances it required. The court had come to the conclusion that,
bearing in mind the issues which had arisen, the jury appeared to have
been under a misapprehension of what their task was and had difficulty
in understanding what was the law.

Mr Justice Lynch said that the trial judge also had difficulty
understanding what the jury were asking of him. He (trial judge) had
correctly said he did not wish to get into a discussion on the merits
or demerits of the case.

But, unfortunately, said Mr Justice Lynch, the trial judge did not
give any guidance on the law on the question of the meaning of
``possession''.

Having regard to the ``run'' of this case and particularly questions
asked by the jury at the end of it, the Court of Criminal Appeal had
come to the conclusion that the conviction was unsafe and
unsatisfactory and would quash it.