Latest Expert Witness News
Man wins Supreme Court appeal over drug valuation
A convicted on drug seller has been allowed to bring an appeal to the Supreme Court on grounds that his case raises an important point of law, relating to how valuations are placed on illegal drugs.
Alphonsus Connolly of Co Wexford Ireland, was convicted in 2007 of having amphetamines with a value of Euro 13,000 or more for sale and supply. He was jailed for the mandatory minimum 10-year term, for persons found with illegal drugs valued at more than Euro 13,000.
During the trial, Connolly was found with 10 bags containing white powder, and a scientist testified these were drugs with a street value of Euro 145,755. Connolly pleaded guilty, and the issue for the jury to consider was the question of the value of the drugs.
He later appealed his conviction on grounds that the judge should have withdrawn the case from the jury because there was no evidence on which the jury could be satisfied beyond doubt that the market value of the drugs was Euro 13,000 or more.
The appeal court dismissed his appeal last May after holding that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude the market value of the drugs exceeded Euro 13,000.
Connolly then applied for the case to be referred to the Supreme Court to address how valuations are placed on drugs. The appeal court certified the case for referral to the Supreme Court. That court will be asked whether the amount of the controlled substance present can be established on the basis of an expert’s oral evidence about the range within which amounts of that controlled substance in other powders generally falls.
Last week the three-judge Court of Criminal Appeal, with Ms Justice Susan Denham presiding and joined by Mr Justice Daniel Herbert and Mr Justice Michael Hanna, ruled that Connolly’s case raised a point of law of exceptional public importance requiring determination by the Supreme Court. The point arises because Section 15(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act provides that the value of drugs found must be ascertained by an expert witness. The Supreme Court will be asked whether the purity of illegal substances can lawfully be established from the evidence of an expert witness relating to the general levels of purity found in other similar substances.
The Supreme Court will also be asked to decide whether the prosecution must disclose to the defence a statement or a report by the expert setting out the facts upon which their opinion is based.
It has been argued that Connolly’s trial was told, in line with laboratory procedure, that only five of the 10 bags were tested, and the amphetamine content of the powder was not analysed.
back