DPP v Ramzan
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Edwards |
| Judgment Date | 11 May 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] IECA 148 |
| Docket Number | Record No: CCA 42/12 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Ireland) |
| Date | 11 May 2016 |
THE COURT OF APPEAL
Edwards J.
Record No: CCA 42/12
Sheehan J.
Mahon J.
Edwards J.
Conviction – Possession of a controlled drug for the purpose of selling or otherwise supplying it to another – Expert testimony – Appellant seeking to appeal against conviction – Whether trial judge erred in ruling that the appellant ought not to be permitted to adduce expert testimony in the course of the trial
Facts: The appellant, Mr Ramzan, on the 14th September, 2006, drove a lorry under Gardaí surveillance. When the lorry and a Nissan Almera pulled in to a furniture factory car park on Station Road, Lusk, Co. Dublin, a man was observed to be sitting on a nearby wall. The man in the passenger seat of the Nissan Almera got out of his vehicle. The Nissan Almera then drove off, and the passenger walked towards the lorry. The passenger door of the lorry then opened, and the man from the Nissan Almera took a white coloured item from his backpack and handed it up to the person in the passenger seat of the lorry. Both the appellant and the passenger then reached behind their seats and pulled a large plastic bag containing white coloured objects into the front of the lorry. The man sitting on the wall got down and approached the passenger door of the lorry. He handed an item from his open bag to a person in the lorry through the open passenger door. At this point the Garda surveillance team, suspecting that the men in question were in possession of controlled drugs, intervened. They intercepted the four men and the two vehicles in the factory car park, and proceeded to search them pursuant to s. 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977. A large quantity of cocaine was found within the lorry, as was some ?85,000 in cash. The quantity of cocaine involved was worth an estimated ?485,000. All five men suspected of being involved were arrested on suspicion of having committed a drug trafficking offence and were detained. The appellant was interviewed and made a number of admissions, including that he knew there were drugs in the lorry and that he was to receive £400/500 from his passenger for his driving of the lorry. On the 20th January, 2012, the appellant was convicted by a jury on a count of possession of a controlled drug for the purpose of selling or otherwise supplying it to another, contrary to s. 15 of the 1977 Act. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal against his conviction on the grounds that the trial judge erred in ruling that: 1) the appellant ought not to be permitted to adduce expert testimony in the course of the trial concerning the appellant?s cognitive functioning and mental state at various times following his involvement in a road traffic accident on the 29th of October, 2005, either from a Dr Pender, a Consultant Neuropsychologist, or from various medical specialists who had treated him for the injuries that he had sustained in the said accident; 2) that the detention of the appellant purportedly in accordance with s. 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1984 was lawful in circumstances where the member in charge of the garda station at which the appellant was detained, who had testified orally that he had been designated to act as member in charge of the said garda station by the superintendent in charge of the relevant garda district, was unable to produce the written record of the superintendent?s direction so designating him. The issue as to whether or not the appellant would be allowed to adduce the expert medical testimony in controversy was raised in the first instance pursuant to s. 34 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2010 at a pre–trial hearing on the 28th June, 2011. It was then raised again at the trial itself.
Held by Edwards J that, in circumstances where the ruling on the s. 34 application was correct and the appellant had not been prejudiced, there were no implications for the safety of the verdict arising from the ruling on the s. 34 application. The Court was satisfied that in the circumstances there were no implications for the safety of the verdict arising from the ruling on the second s. 34 application with respect to Dr Pender. The Court agreed with the trial judge that he would have had discretion to admit the admissions in controversy under s. 7(3) of the 1984 Act had he needed to do so, but the Court was firmly of the view that he did not in fact need to do so as his ruling had been correct.
Edwards J held that the appeal against conviction should be dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
This judgment is concerned with an appeal by the appellant against his conviction by a jury on the 20th of January, 2012, on a count of possession of a controlled drug, to wit, cocaine, on the 14th of September, 2006, at Station Road, Lusk, Co. Dublin for the purpose of selling or otherwise supplying it to another, contrary to s. 15 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 (as amended).
The facts giving rise to the offence charged are uncontroversial and may be briefly summarized.
On the 14th of September, 2006, gardaí from the Garda National Drugs Unit were, based upon intelligence they had received, conducting surveillance on a number of persons, properties and vehicles in the Lusk area of County Dublin. In the course of that surveillance, a number of those gardaí, while travelling in an unmarked car, were following a Nissan Almera motorcar, at a discrete distance back from it, which was travelling from Lusk in the direction of Skerries. The Nissan Almera contained two persons of interest to the gardaí. At a certain point on the road between Lusk and Skerries, an English registered lorry, travelling in the opposite direction, was observed to flash its lights at the Nissan Almera. Once the Nissan Almera had passed the lorry, the lorry then pulled in to the left side of the road. The Nissan Almera then did a U-turn and headed back in the direction from which it had come. As soon as it had passed by the stationery lorry, the lorry immediately moved off again, pulling back out on to the road and taking up a position behind the Nissan Almera. Both vehicles then travelled in convoy for some distance until they reached a roundabout on the outskirts of Lusk.
At that point, both vehicles took the same exit from the roundabout and then proceeded along a bypass around Lusk village. After proceeding through a further roundabout, they then exited on to Station Road and headed in the direction of Rush, Co. Dublin. When they reached a furniture factory on the road in question, both vehicles pulled in to the factory car park and stopped. A third man, whom gardaí had observed being dropped off at that location earlier in the day, was observed to be sitting on a nearby wall at this time. The man in the passenger seat of the Nissan Almera got out of his vehicle, and he was noted to have a navy coloured backpack on his shoulders. The Nissan Almera then drove off, and the passenger who had alighted from it walked towards the English registered lorry. Gardaí observed that the lorry had two occupants, i.e., a driver and a passenger. It was later established that the driver of the lorry was the appellant. The passenger door of the lorry then opened, and the man from the Nissan Almera was observed taking a white coloured item from his navy backpack and handing it up to the person in the passenger seat of the lorry. Both the lorry driver and the passenger were then observed to reach behind their seats and to pull a large plastic bag containing white coloured objects into the front of the lorry. They appeared to gardaí to be tearing at the plastic bag as if trying to tear it open. While this was happening, the previously mentioned third man was observed getting down from the wall on which he had been seated, and he also approached the passenger door of the lorry. This man was observed to be carrying a blue sports bag at this time. When he reached the lorry, he was also seen handing an item from his open bag to a person in the lorry through the open passenger door. At this point the Garda surveillance team, suspecting that the men in question were in possession of controlled drugs, intervened. They intercepted the four men and the two vehicles in the factory car park, and they proceeded to search them pursuant to s. 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977. A large quantity of cocaine, packed in brown taped packages and wrapped in white quilts, was found within the lorry, as was some ?85,000 in cash. The quantity of cocaine involved was 8.355 kilograms, worth an estimated ?485,000.
All five men suspected of being involved, being the two men in the Nissan Almera (the driver of which was separately apprehended), the man who had been seated on the factory wall and the two men in the lorry (one of whom was the appellant), were arrested on suspicion of having committed a drug trafficking offence and were detained. The appellant was interviewed on a number of occasions while so detained and made a number of admissions, including that he knew there were drugs in the lorry and that he was to receive £400/500 from his passenger for his driving of the lorry.
All five men suspected of being involved were later charged with various drugs offences. All except the appellant pleaded guilty. The appellant, who was initially charged with three offences, contested his trial. He successfully obtained a direction on Count No. 1 and Count No. 3 on the indictment preferred against him, but was found guilty by a jury on Count No. 2. It is against that conviction that he appeals to this Court.
The Notice of Appeal filed by the appellant lists ten grounds of appeal against conviction designated (a) to (j) respectively. However, these grounds appear to...
To continue reading
Request your trial