At festival, undercover member of the DS seized my stuff, what happens next?

Keek, get over yourself and get a good solicitor. If you don't know how to do this (and do it well), consider swallowing your pride and asking your parents for advice. I doubt your parents would be too shocked at having a son who smoked pot (just once, m'lud) in this day and age.

If you keep trying to play this out by yourself and get screwed in court, you've only yourself to blame.

The consequences of this are potentially very serious, depending on your level of ambition in the future.

So grow up, deal with it properly.
 
extopia: Cheers for the advice, sounded very patronising, but serious advice.

Don't worry, I' not some kid living a home, I gave him the address on my drivers licence which was my home address I'm alot older than you think I am!!! Parents are a bit of a drive away!

I will be getting onto a solicitor tomorrow morning as planned. Which means I'll be getting professional advice from now on folks.

G'Nite, G'luck... and wish me luck!

Mods feel free to lock this one up. (The thread, that is.. Not me!)
 
DavyJones said:
1John said:
I beg to differ.
I said no chance of a possesion with intent charge and I was right. He has received his summons, albeit to the wrong name and address. Nice one, the reefer gods are smiling down on OP.
Click to expand...

DavyJones
You said 'no chance' of possession with intent charge. Well there was every chance of such a charge. You could have only one reefer and sell it which immediately would make you a dealer.
The Gardai decided to lay the 'possession only' charge but could have laid the other charge. There is a very long and tedious explanation in regard to the considerations to be taken on board when deciding the mode of prosecution and I'm not going to bore the pants off everybody by going into it here. Some idea of what's involved could be gleaned by having a scan via Google using the term "de jure versus de facto". A very rough explanation for this would be this: " what the law lays down versus what actually happens".
As a matter of pure convenience and very much because of the prevalance of drug usage and the proliferation of possession offences, a high percentage of drug cases are dealt with via the Sec 3 MDA route (possession only) as opposed to the Sec 15 MDA charge (possession for sale/supply) even though a Sec 15 charge could be made.

Bond-007
There are no felonies under the MDA Acts only offences with the DPP electing for mode of disposal in regard to summary prosecution versus trial on indictment in the Circuit Court.
Click to expand...
 
1John

There are no felonies full stop, these were abolished by the Criminal Law Act 1997 as were misdemeanours, it's summary or indictable disposal.

I also absolutely disagree with you saying a S15 chrage could be laid for possession of one joint, that's absolutely ridiculas. Whilst there is no quantum laid down by the legislature as to what is a S3 or S15 common sense would say that a small bit of weed/hash (or any controlled drug) could and would not constitute sale/supply.
 
McCrack said:
1John

There are no felonies full stop, these were abolished by the Criminal Law Act 1997 as were misdemeanours, it's summary or indictable disposal.

I also absolutely disagree with you saying a S15 chrage could be laid for possession of one joint, that's absolutely ridiculas. Whilst there is no quantum laid down by the legislature as to what is a S3 or S15 common sense would say that a small bit of weed/hash (or any controlled drug) could and would not constitute sale/supply.
Click to expand...

McCrack
My position on the nonexistence of felonies is quite clear as stated by me in relation to the matter under discussion. See my last comment to Bond-007.

As regards the drug quantity that qualifies for a Sec 15 (sale/supply) charge, there is no specific quantification specified under the legislation in regard to any particular quantity of illicit drugs nor could there be. A great deal of discretion is allowed the judiciary in administering the law at the hearing of these cases.

In that regard there are two crucial points to be made:
(1) Sec 15 sub.sec (2) MDA 1977 makes reference to quantity but does not specify amount and then makes a second point for the guidance of judges allowing that the court may take into account 'such other matter as the court may consider relevant'.........end of quote.

Now what might that be ? Well consider this: If I had a spamspamspam cigarette (one only) and sold it to you and we were detected then what offence (a) did I commit and (b) did you commit ? The answer is contained in Sec 15 (2) above.
Having said that I would like to acknowledge this much, that if the persons detected were low level or first time offenders then nobody would quarrel with a Sec 3 (poss only) charge and in the real world that is what would probably happen ( Read up on 'de facto - de jure' for further clarification on this reasoning). On the other hand if the participants were targeted criminals then the Sec 15 (sale/supply) could be considered and may even be laid. I'll give you this absolute assurance, that career criminals in this jurisdiction have from time to time been charged with Sec 15 in circumstances where smaller fry would have been disposed of via Sec 3.

The legislation concerned needs to be carefully examined and thought through as it is cumbersome and frequently found to be confusing by those who may not be familiar with legal phraseology. That's how lawyers make their money tho' so no quarrel from that quarter.
 
Much of what you say is correct but again I'll reiterate that a S15 (sale/supply) is only applicable when a person sells or supplies for commercial gain, passing a joint to another person or dishing out some coke at a party etc will not come under this.

The authorities will look at the volume of the drug and the circumstances of its detection to decide whether it's simple possession or sale/supply.
Out of the two it normally boils down to the street value which determines which charge will be preferred.

Now your point saying that known criminals with previous for drug offences found with a small amount of a controlled drug a S15 would be laid is not correct.
A Judge (or Jury) cannot know or take into any consideration an accused's history or previous convictions at any time up until the acquittal or conviction, these only become relevant when a Judge is considering sentence...innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, trial in due course of law and all that.
If a S15 charge was laid (which it never would) on a person (hardened criminal or otherwise) who had possession of a small amount of a controlled drug it simply would not stick.
 
McCrack
I note what you say but am of the view that a lot of what you offer is flawed. Take for example your point about about 'commercial gain' which by the way is quite novel in that you are adding to the mix something that is not mentioned or alluded to in the legislation at all. If I interpret you correctly you seem to be saying that a Sec 15 MDA charge MUST be tied to a largish quantity of the drug and I say NO to that proposition. I allow that Sec 15 charges are usually related to the larger quantities but I am insisting that there are circumstances in which a small quantity of the drug could still attract the sale/supply charge.

Consider this scenario. Just think of someone who has died as the result of having ingested a controlled drug (not too difficult, I think you'll agree) and if the supplier in that case were to be identified and there was evidence of a single supply only, then which charge (simple possession or sale/supply) would be entirely appropriate in those circumstances ?

Also, I think you misunderstand me in regard to the reference to 'career criminals'. I was referring to the considerations of the prosecutor (DPP) in deciding to lay a charge and would point out that the prosecutor will in countless instances be privy to information that has a persuasive value in the pre-charge situation but which will never get an airing during the trial.
As proof of this, I would out that many primary charges are accompanied by secondary charges that do not result in a conviction because the evidence at the hearing does not serve to convince the Judge or jury to the appropriate degree yet the charge(s) were still laid in the first instance.

Furthermore, in a small but important number of cases convictions have been obtained in sale/supply cases where merely traces of the drug(s) were found yet the evidence was good enough to convince the court. Such cases are fraught with difficulty and there would have been a strong reliance in them on the 'such other matter as the court may consider relevant' provision of Sec 15(2) MDA as alluded to in an earlier post.
 
Thought I'd give yis another update, and actually finish off this thread, no doubt there will be some body this time next year reading this thread wondering about the same things I was.

I appeared in court yesterday, was a pain in the This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language, waiting around for hours and I was no more than 45 secs in front of the judge when I eventually got called. I had a solicitor lined up well before the court date. You can get a solicitor on the day itself in the courthouse but I'd say get one before you get to court. My mate who got a solicitor on the day was charged €250, if you arrange it before hand like I did, you get the solicitor for €180.

Solicitor advised not to try get the case trown out because of the errors on the summons because all they had to do was change the details and I would be called for another date which would be not worth the effort, why delay the pain. I'm sure if it was a qoute day in court without a couple hundred people up for the same things they would have tried to get it thrown out.

Was fined €1,300 and got the probation act so record in still clean. Was happy enough as long as I wasn't convicted. And any way, the probation act is in the wrong name so if I was to get caught again, this probation will not show up. Still though, 2 weeks wages down the toilet. Some GAA club in Naas is getting a fresh supply of Lucozade, on me!!

All people who got caught with Spliff got probation act and a Minimum fine was 1,000, fine gets bigger with the quantitly that you are caught with.

Anyone who had something other than a spliff got a conviction was fined alot more.

6,368 views, I feel so popular!!!:cool:
 
Glad to hear it worked out in the end (allbeit, you are down a good few bob!). Thanks for posting an update. A lot of non regular posters, post for advice and never let those who contributed to the thread know the final outcome.
 
bond-007 said:
€1300 for a simple possession was very severe.
Click to expand...

I was thinking that myself. Difficult to compare "crimes" sometimes but to add perspective, you may not even receive this for a violent assault for example.
 
Keek said:
...no doubt there will be some body this time next year reading this thread wondering about the same things I was.
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing Keek, ...this thread will no doubt help the next poor unfortunate who has their festival ruined by the shades...
 
Now had it been Deco and the lads from the council estate they would have gotten away with a €50 fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top