Cork man caught with drugs ‘while hunting rabbits’ fails in appeal bid

A Cork man who claimed he was out scouting fields for rabbit hunting when he was caught with almost 10kg of cannabis in a Garda sting operation has failed in a bid to have an appeal heard by the Supreme Court.

Karl Humphries, last of Curraheen Drive, Bishopstown, was convicted of three counts of possession of cannabis worth around €58,000 for sale or supply by a Cork Circuit Criminal Court jury in July 2021.

Humphries had told gardaí he was hunting rabbits in the vicinity of Watergrasshill, Co Cork, on July 25, 2012, when gardaí had placed a large bag of cannabis they found earlier in the day under surveillance. The bag was found to contain 9.74kg of cannabis resin and gardaí had concealed themselves by a nearby hedge. A car later pulled up and Humphries got out and began to search for the bag, which he found.

Detective Garda Michael O’Halloran said gardaí discovered and returned the bag of drugs to a concealed position under an old tyre and that he was keeping it under surveillance when Humphries arrived. Humphries denied being involved in the drugs trade at any level, had pleaded not guilty to the three charges, and maintained he never touched the bag.

Humphries gave evidence that he saw Det Gda O’Halloran lying in the ditch and had said ‘hello’ to him before the detective pounced.

Humphries was convicted by a 10-2 majority verdict by the jury. The judge sentenced Humphries to 10 years’ imprisonment with the final two years suspended. In 2023, Humphries, then aged 40, appealed the conviction claiming the trial judge, Sean Ó Donnabháin, incorrectly charged the jury as to the standard of proof in criminal trials.

In rejecting the appeal, Ms Justice Aileen Donnelly said the judge had not erred in telling the jury that the standard of proof “was a step above probabilities and a step below absolute certainty”. Ms Justice Donnelly said the judge’s remarks were preceded by and succeeded by “several clear explanations of the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt”, which was described as a “high” standard and was compared with the lower civil standard at the trial. This week, the Supreme Court published a determination rejecting Humphries’ application to have his appeal heard as a matter of “general public importance” regarding the description of the standard of proof given to the jury by the trial judge.

Humphries’ lawyers claimed that there was a “significant risk that the jury was left with an impression that the standard was halfway between balance of probabilities (51%) and absolute certainty (100%)”. He claimed this suggested that the standard of proof was therefore at 75.5% and that explanations elsewhere in the trial judge’s charge to the jury were “inadequate to remedy the error”.

The Supreme Court determined that the Court of Appeal had applied “well-established principles regarding the standard of proof” and the manner in which the trial judge explained these to the jury. The Supreme Court held that Humphries’ proposed appeal “related to the particular facts of this case, and no matter of general public importance arises”.

“The court is not satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of justice that there be a further appeal,” the Supreme Court determined.