A man claims gardaí massively overestimated the value of a herbal substance used to help addicts come off heroin when they charged him with having possession of a drug with intent to supply, the High Court has heard.
The substance is Mitragynine, which is more commonly known as Kratom, named after a native south-east Asia tree with leaves containing the substance which can produce effects of an opioid.
Ronan Maguire, of Ard na Greine Terrace, Summerhill, Wicklow town, is facing charges of possession of Kratom for supply as it is a controlled drug in this country. He denies the charges.
Pending his trial in the Circuit Criminal Court, he is seeking an order from the High Court requiring gardaí to reveal how they came to value the 1kg of the substance at €20,000. He claims the same amount can be bought in countries where it is legal for between €180 to €300.
‘They think they’re no good and that they shouldn’t be in this world’
Jonathan Coe: ‘The morning after the election felt like waking up in a safe room, having been in an abusive relationship for 14 years’
Irish postpunk band Gurriers: ‘Everyone asks about the Dublin music scene. It’s not just Dublin any more, it’s everywhere’
Hugh Linehan: Cillian Murphy’s Small Things Like These has become a cause celebre of the Make Ireland Great Again brigade
Mr Maguire was charged with having the Kratom for the purpose of supply at the Primary Healthcare Centre, Drumkay Road, Wicklow, on September 11th, 2019.
In his High Court judicial review proceedings against the DPP, he seeks orders including that he should be provided with all information in the possession of the gardai which underpins the value put on the seizure by the gardai.
On Tuesday, Mr Justice Charles Meenan directed that Mr Maguire’s application for leave to bring proceedings, which had been brought with only the Maguire side represented, be made on notice to the DPP. He adjourned it to January.
Earlier, Michael O’Higgins SC told the judge that Kratom is used in herbal tea and the quantity, in this case, was about the size of two 500g teabag boxes. It is common case that it is frequently used by people to mitigate the withdrawal effects when coming off heroin, he said.
The manner in which controlled substances are generally valued by gardaí is “not the most scientific”, he said. Gardaí seize drugs and build up intelligence as to the valuation put on them.
The valuation is then used to decide whether someone should be charged with simple possession for supply or with the more serious charge of possession for supply under Section 15A of the Drugs Act, he said. Under this provision, where the market value of the drug involved amounts to at least €13,000, an accused must receive a minimum sentence of 10 years imprisonment.
When the book of evidence was served on Mr Maguire, he was charged with the more serious Section 15A offence but this was later withdrawn by the DPP and he now faces a simple charge of possession. However, counsel said, what is at issue in this case is that there is a difference of 100 times in the open market price and the valuation put on it by gardaí.
In advance of the Circuit Court trial, Mr Maguire’s legal team brought an application to a judge of that court seeking disclosure of the basis on which the valuation was made.
The judge rejected the application saying the DPP had done all she was required to do in relation to her disclosure obligations. The judge also found it would ultimately be a matter for a jury as to whether Mr Maguire had the Kratom for personal use or for supply.
Mr O’Higgins said without further information from the gardaí about how they arrived at their valuation, it would not be possible for an expert on their side to challenge the Garda evidence which will be put forward at trial about the valuation.
Gardaí have insisted that it can be bought for €20 per gram on the street which would mean a kilogram is worth €20,000, counsel said.
Asked by Mr Justice Meenan how close the hearing of the criminal matter is, counsel said it is on a very long list of cases and, as a result, he was not seeking a stay on his client’s prosecution pending the outcome of the High Court challenge.