Man jailed for drugs' offences appeals conviction

Maciej Masznic was jailed at Tralee courthouse but has appealed his sentence. Picture: Denis Minihane

A judge who jailed a man for seven-and-a-half years for drugs offences failed to instruct the jury on the fundamental issue of possession, the Court of Appeal was told yesterday.

Maciej Masznic, aged 41, of Red Farm House, Knocknaclogher, Ballyroe, Tralee, Co Kerry, had pleaded not guilty to five charges contrary to Misuse of Drugs Act 1977.

A jury, however, found him guilty of being in possession of quantities of  cannabis and methylamphetamine for unlawful sale or supply at his home address on February 18, 2015.

The value of the drug haul was estimated to be over €13,000.

He was later jailed for the offences by Judge Thomas E O’Donnell in July 2019 after a five-day trial at Tralee Circuit Criminal Court had concluded in February of the same year.

Masznic has appealed the conviction on the grounds Judge Thomas E O’Donnell failed to charge the jury on the concept of possession.

It is further argued that “no reasonable jury” could have convicted the appellant of the offences if the judge had charged them correctly.

Yesterday, Dean Kelly, defending, said the “beating heart of the case was the concept of possession and knowledge”.

However, this had not been explained by the judge in his charge to the jury, Mr Kelly said.

“To not charge a jury on knowledge or possession in a knowledge and possession case is as fundamental as it gets,” counsel said.

The judge’s failure to instruct the jury on these issues meant the State’s case “falls at the first hurdle”.

“I’m asking no more than the jury is told what the words on the indictment mean,” Mr Kelly said.

“That wasn’t done here. For whatever reason, matters fell short.” 

In response, Thomas Rice, who represented the DPP at Masznic’s trial, said he had devoted two days of the proceedings proving the appellant had “guilty knowledge” of the drugs which had been found in his home following a raid by gardaí.

“The jury knew exactly what the issues were,” Mr Rice said, and he believed he had presented the prosecution’s case carefully to the jury.

He said that although trials move from issue to issue, the defence and prosecution in the appellant’s trial had discussed the issue of possession in the presence of the jury.

“Any jury could not have been in any doubt that the essence of what the prosecution was trying to prove was ‘guilty knowledge’,” counsel said.

“There is no way any member of the jury could have been left in the position Mr Kelly said they were.” 

Mr Rice also maintained that if the judge did make an error in his charge, it would not have made a difference to the eventual outcome of the trial.

Mr Justice George Birmingham, presiding, sitting with Mr Justice John Edwards and Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy, said the court would reserve judgement.