‘It’s only a bit of weed’ - driver denies cannabis concealed under bonnet of BMW was ‘for sale’

A man accused of possessing cannabis for sale or supply told Carrick-on-Shannon District Court that drugs found concealed in his car were for his own personal use and were not intended for sale.

Cian O’Donoghue (32), of no fixed abode, appeared before Judge Éiteáin Cunningham having been charged in connection with an incident at Drumsna on May 31, 2023.

The court heard that Garda David Finnegan was on patrol when he observed a grey BMW 520 acting in a suspicious manner, slowing down and watching the patrol vehicle.

At around 9.50pm, the car was stopped in Drumsna village. When Garda Finnegan spoke to Mr O’Donoghue and another man who was a passenger, he noticed that both men appeared anxious and nervous. Garda Finnegan told the court that, due to his observations, he carried out a search of the vehicle under the Misuse of Drugs Act.

READ ALSO: RIP: Man killed in crash near Sligo-Leitrim border named locally 

During the search, gardaí discovered a quantity of cannabis concealed under the bonnet of the car, behind the front right headlight.

The drugs were contained in a sealed vacuum pack. The cannabis was said to have a street value of more than €1,200.
“You’re just pricks, it’s only a bit of weed,” O’Donoghue told the guards before he was arrested and cautioned.

The court heard that he admitted the drugs were his and signed garda notes accepting responsibility. He also said the cannabis did not belong to his passenger.

He was taken to Carrick-on-Shannon garda station, where he was detained and interviewed. The court was told that the drugs were later sent to Forensic Science Ireland, which confirmed that the substance was cannabis weighing more than 62 grams.

Mr O’Donoghue was later charged under Section 15 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, which relates to possession of drugs for sale or supply. During cross-examination, Mr O’Donoghue’s solicitor, John Anderson, challenged the legality of the stop and the handling of the drugs exhibit.

He also questioned the legal grounds for stopping the vehicle - suggesting the BMW had been targeted because of its make and model.

“I’m putting it to you,” Mr Anderson said, “that you stopped this vehicle because it was a BMW 5 Series — and that’s known as a drug dealers’ car.”

Mr Anderson also raised concerns about the chain of custody, as the drugs were stored in a garda’s personal locker for several days before being sent for analysis. He further argued there was no evidence of drug dealing, noting that no money, scales, or packaging materials were found.

He added that nothing of evidential value was recovered from Mr O’Donoghue’s mobile phone.

Giving evidence, Mr O’Donoghue told the court the cannabis was for his own use and not for sale. “It wasn’t for sale,” he said.

“It was for myself,” he insisted.

The defendant said he had purchased the drugs in bulk with the intention that they would last him several weeks. He said he had paid approximately €600 to buy the drugs. “I’d buy a bit at a time,” he said.

“That would be a few weeks’ worth.”

He then explained why he hid the drugs under the bonnet. “I wasn’t going to have it on the dashboard,” he said. “I knew it was illegal, so I put it somewhere out of the way.”

He denied slowing down suspiciously before being stopped.

“They (gardai) pulled in and followed me,” he said. “I didn’t slow down.” He also said he admitted ownership of the drugs to protect the passenger who was in the car with him. “I didn’t want him getting in trouble,” he said.

He said he had been working on and off as an engineer at the time and denied any involvement in drug dealing.

Judge Cunningham rejected the defence submissions and an application to have the case dismissed.

She said she was satisfied that the vehicle had been lawfully stopped and that there was no break in the chain of evidence.

However, she noted that the issue of whether the drugs were for personal use or for sale would be central to the case.

The judge said that while the quantity and location of the drugs raised serious questions, the defence was entitled to challenge the prosecution’s case.

The matter was adjourned to March 24 for further hearing.