A Dublin man has lost his appeal against his conviction for his role in a €600,000 cocaine conspiracy.
David Timmons (aged 27) of Chapel Gate, Balbriggan had claimed that his conviction by a jury at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court in December 2008, of conspiracy to possess cocaine worth around €600,000 on September 14, 2006 was unsafe and should be set aside.
Timmons, originally from Swords, was found guilty by the jury of conspiring with others to possess the 8.83kg of cocaine which was hidden in a lorry load of quilts at a furniture Store outside Lusk. Judge Patricia Ryan jailed Timmons for eight years.
Today the Court of Criminal Appeal comprised of Ms Justice Fidelma Macken, presiding, sitting with Mr Justice Declan Budd, and Mr Justice Michael Hanna dismissed Timmons' appeal against his conviction after finding that he had not received an unfair trial.
In his appeal Timmons claimed that his conviction was perverse, unsafe and should be set aside on a number of grounds including that the trial judge had allowed evidence go before the jury obtained from mobile phones and notebooks located in his residence.
He also alleged that Judge Ryan had wrongly failed to explain to a jury how the mobile phone evidence should have been treated, and that at its highest was only supportive of the prosecution case against him. He further claimed that the trial judge has not properly charged the jury.
The DPP opposed the appeal and argued that the conviction was safe.
In its judgment the CCA said that this was a complex appeal where a large number of grounds had been raised. However the court was satisfied that no ground had been raised that would render the conviction unsafe.
Ms Justice Macken said the CCA was satisfied the trial Judge was entitled to admit the notebook and mobile phones in question.
The CCA also found that the trial judge had properly charged the jury. The CCA said that it was satisfied with the completeness and with the adequacy of Judge Ryan's charge to the jury.
The court added that it would consider Timmons appeal against the severity of the eight year sentence at a later date.