DPP v Hanley

JudgeFinnegan J.
Judgment Date27 October 2010
Neutral Citation[2010] IECCA 99
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeal
Docket Number[C.C.A. No. 164 of
Date27 October 2010

[2010] IECCA 99


Finnegan J.

Budd J.

Hanna J.

DPP v Hanley



DPP v CRONIN 2003 3 IR 3772003/15/2302




Court of Criminal Appeal - Misuse of drugs - Evidence - Manner in which value of controlled drugs could be proved - Whether evidence of value of controlled drugs restricted to member of Garda Siochána or officer of Customs and Excise who has knowledge of unlawful sale or supply of controlled drugs - Whether retired garda competent to give such evidence - Whether defence not raised at trial could be relied upon in appeal - People (DPP) v Cronin (No. 2) [2006] IESC 9, [2006] 4 IR 329 considered - Appeal dismissed (2/2010 - CCA - 15/10/2010) [2010] IECCA 99

People (DPP) v Hanley

Facts The applicant was convicted on two counts relating to drugs offences. The applicant had been followed by Gardaí mounting a surveillance operation. The applicant had been observed throwing a bag from a car which subsequently transpired to contain drugs. It was submitted on behalf of the applicant that evidence regarding valuation of the amphetamines should have been excluded. It was contended that evidence was given by a retired Garda which should not have been allowed. An issue had also been raised as to the trial charge given by the trial judge.

Held by the Court of Criminal Appeal in dismissing the application. The retired Garda had proved himself as an expert witness and no objection could be taken to his giving evidence of value. The learned trial judge had correctly given the charge to the jury. The court would refuse the applicant leave to appeal against conviction.

Reporter: R.F.


Judgment of the Court (ex tempore) delivered on the 15th day of October 2010by Finnegan J.


This is an application for leave to appeal against conviction. The applicant was convicted on two counts. The first count is a count of possession contrary to section 15 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 as amended of a controlled drug namely amphetamine at Mountrath, Co. Laois on the 1 st January 2004. Count 2 relates to the same date and the same drugs and is a charge contrary to section 15A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 as amended. On the day in question Gardai had mounted a surveillance operation in reliance of information they had received. They were waiting to see a red 1992 Volvo. When they made contact with that car they followed it. It would appear that the driver of the car became aware that he was being followed, did a U-turn and made off at some speed and the Gardai gave chase. Eventually the car turned into a cul-de-sac. The Gardai entered the cul-de-sac on foot and they observed the applicant who was a passenger in the car throw a bag from the car window. Thebag was retrieved and was found to contain the amphetamine. The evidence before the court was that the amphetamine had a value of €45,000.


There is some difficulty in this case as counsel for the applicant fairly admits. He was not retained for the hearing of the case but was retained for the purposes of this appeal. In those circumstances he says that he cannot explain why matters which should have been raised were not in fact raised and asks that the court should not invoke the principle in the Director of Public Prosecutions v Cronin against him in the circumstances. In any even what the court proposes to do in relation to those grounds of appeal which are persevered in is to have regard to the overall circumstances and should it be the case that a fundamental breach of fair procedures or that a serious error may have occurred the court has a discretion to admit a particular ground of appeal. In any event the court is in a position to deal with those grounds of appeal which are ultimately relied upon.


The first ground of appeal is that the evidence of valuation of the amphetamines should have been excluded. It is the case that no objection was taken at the trial to that evidence but nonetheless the court proposes to look at this objection in any event. The Criminal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • DPP v Bourke Waste Removal Ltd and Others
    • Ireland
    • Court of Criminal Appeal
    • 24 Mayo 2012
    ...... 20.12.2011 2011/19/4642 2011 IECCC 2 F (S) v JUDGE MURPHY & ORS UNREP HEDIGAN 18.11.2009 2009/22/5400 2009 IEHC 497 DILLANE v IRELAND & AG 1980 ILRM 167 1980/12/2233 DCR 1948 RULE 67 MIN FOR JUSTICE v DEVINE UNREP SUPREME 26.1.2012 2012 IESC 2 DPP v HANLEY PEPPER LTD & JACKSON UNREP CCA 28.3.2011 (EX TEMPORE) 89/2010 - Hardiman Moriarty Hogan - CCA - 24/5/2012 - 2012 2 ILRM 496 2012 11 2955 2012 IECCA 66 . 1 24th day of May 2012 by Mr. Justice Hardiman . . 2 1. This is an appeal brought by the ......
  • DPP v Hanley
    • Ireland
    • Court of Criminal Appeal
    • 27 Octubre 2010
    ...refused (164/2009 - CCA - 27/20/2010) [2010] IECCA 101 People (DPP) v Hanley 164/2009 - Fennelly De Valera Edwards - CCA - 27/10/2010 - 2011 1 IR 247 2010 15 3713 2010 IECCA 101 1 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL DELIVERED THE 27th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010 BY MR JUSTICE FENNELLY 2 The a......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT