Two men from Armagh, aged 47 and 24, were arrested in Falcarragh, Co Donegal, on 20 August 2007 after around 50 kg of herbal cannabis worth an estimated €500,000 was seized in a joint operation involving gardaí, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and customs officials.[1] The men, father and son Kieran Smyth senior and junior, were held at Letterkenny Garda station and then charged in connection with the seizure.[1][2] They appeared before the court in Donegal on 23 August and were remanded in custody.[2]
The appeal court later established the full sequence: during a routine search in the DHL compound at Dublin Airport in August 2007, five substantial parcels were found to contain herbal cannabis, with a named consignee and a telephone number.[3] Gardaí took possession of the parcels, made contact by telephone, arranged a rendezvous and handed the parcels to the two applicants, who were arrested and charged shortly afterwards.[3]
The Smyths were charged with possession of cannabis for unlawful sale or supply, possession of cannabis worth more than €13,000 for the same purpose, and simple possession, all allegedly committed at Falcarragh on 20 August 2007.[3] They were tried before Letterkenny Circuit Criminal Court between 3 and 19 June 2008; the younger man was convicted unanimously on all three counts and his father by a majority verdict.[3] Their defence was that a friend had asked the younger Smyth to collect parcels said to contain computer parts, for about €300, and that his father had only driven the van.[3]
Convictions quashed
On 18 May 2010 the Court of Criminal Appeal allowed their appeal and ordered a retrial of both men.[3] The court held that the trial judge had misdirected the jury on the defence in section 29 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977, giving inconsistent directions that at one point required the accused to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they had no knowledge of the drugs.[3] The court clarified that section 29 casts only an evidential burden on the accused, discharged by raising a reasonable doubt, while the prosecution must prove possession and that the substance is a controlled drug beyond reasonable doubt.[3]