DONEGAN CANNABIS CONVICTION QUASHED

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 pounds 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.