A Corkman, who has served six years of a 22-year sentence for drugs offences, had his conviction overturned by the Court of Criminal Appeal (CCA) yesterday due to the failure of the trial judge to charge the jury in relation to the presumption of innocence and to the manner in which the case was presented to the jury by the trial judge.
The CCA also said a decision on whether there should be a retrial was for the Director of Public Prosecutions to make.
After his conviction was quashed, Edward "Judd" Scanlon, a father of three, of Laburnum Drive, Model Farm, Cork, was released on his own bail of €1,000 and on his mother's independent surety of €10,000.
He had been convicted by a jury at Cork Circuit Criminal Court on March 4th, 1999, on two counts of possession of ecstasy and cocaine with intent to supply.
He was later sentenced by Judge AG Murphy to two terms of imprisonment of 22 years, both sentences to run concurrently.
Yesterday, the CCA quashed the convictions on two points. Firstly, the failure of the trial judge to charge the jury on the presumption of innocence - in spite of an express request that he do so - and secondly, the manner in which the case was presented to the jury by the trial judge.
Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman, giving the CCA's decision, said there was a great deal of common ground between lawyers for Mr Scanlon and the DPP.
George Birmingham SC, for the DPP, had "realistically" accepted the presumption of innocence was a fundamental requirement of a trial, that it was almost invariably referred to when a jury was being charged and that it should have been referred to during Mr Scanlon's trial.
In relation to the presentation of the case to the jury by the trial judge, it was conceded there had been unfortunate aspects to that presentation, particularly having regard to a remark made by the judge about the drugs squad.
Mr Justice Hardiman said it was conceded that remark would have been better left unsaid.
It was a particularly unfortunate remark because it did not appear necessary.
As to the presumption of innocence, this was a question of omission, not a question of inadvertence or an unfortunate form of words that did not express the presumption correctly.
The trial judge felt that he had charged the jury that the onus of proof was on the prosecution and therefore there was no need for him to discuss the presumption at all.
The trial judge had said he was interested in the point being made by Scanlon's lawyers because in his experience it was novel and had said he had never charged a jury by adverting to the presumption of innocence.
Mr Justice Hardiman said it was "desirable" to place on record the "most trenchantly-made criticisms" of the charge to the jury.
It was clear the case turned to a very significant degree on the evidence of a man who was, on any view, an accomplice - a man called (Christopher) Doherty.
The trial judge asked the jury in that connection whether the act of coming forward with evidence against Mr Scanlon was the act of a man ingratiating himself with the Garda or the act of a fellow deciding "to come clean".
The trial judge had said: "You saw him. You have heard an awful lot about him and you determine it yourselves.
"It is suggested that not only Doherty but the gardaí in question, Garda Michelle O'Sullivan and necessarily her companions in the Drugs Squad, virtually conspired with Doherty to bring this prosecution about.
"Now it would be open to you to agree with that, but I think I must say to you to be very careful at the very least before you do so . . ."