Dairy farmer on Tipperary/Offaly border imported €730,000 of cannabis and was caught on M7

A cattle farmer who imported almost three-quarters of a million euros of cannabis into the State has argued that his solicitor did not understand the significance of hearsay evidence put before the jury in his trial.

Defence barristers said that State prosecutors should not have included in their opening speech a reference to the gardaí confirming that they knew there would be drugs in the truck driven by Martin Murray (59), who was identified as the target of the garda operation.

READ NEXT: LONG READ: 'The true meaning of respect needs to return to Cormac's Cemetery'

Barristers for the State, however, said that Murray’s solicitor gave permission for this information to be given.

Murray, of Crumlin Little, Moneygall, Birr, county Offaly, was stopped driving on the M7 on June 30, 2017.

The vehicle was brought to Dublin Port, where holes were drilled into steel rollers and a camera inserted, revealing 73 packages of cannabis with a value of €730,000. A vacuum-packed bag containing €6,000 in cash was also found.

Analysis of sat-nav and tachograph equipment revealed the truck had travelled from Moneygall to Rosslare and across to Breda in the Netherlands via the UK, before returning to Ireland through England and Scotland.

READ NEXT: Man with Tipperary address kissed woman's hand in shopping centre

Murray, who owns a dairy farm in Moneygall on the Offaly-Tipperary border, claimed he didn’t know the drugs were onboard and pleaded not guilty when he appeared before Tullamore Circuit Court.

A jury did not accept his defence and found him guilty of the importation of a controlled drug in excess of €13,000 and having drugs for sale or supply.

In December 2023, Murray was sentenced by Judge Keenan Johnson to ten years in prison, with the final two years suspended.

Appealing Murray’s conviction at the Court of Appeal on Thursday, Michael Bowman SC said that the appellant had been represented at his trial by a solicitor, with a senior and junior counsel initially retained before the senior counsel asked to come off record.

The appellant had been satisfied for the solicitor to then represent him alone.

Mr Bowman said that as the trial proceeded, confidential information was introduced that should not have been.

He said that Murray's solicitor had candidly acknowledged that he did not comprehend the significance of what was put before the jury, as he should have been paying more attention to the prosecution’s opening speech.

Counsel said that there had been no need for the level of detail given by the prosecution, as their opening speech had included a reference to the gardai confirming that they knew there would be drugs in the truck and identifying Murray as the target of the operation.

Mr Bowman said that at the very least the trial judge should have explained to the jury that this was hearsay evidence.

“There was a standout obligation on the prosecution and the judge to make sure the jury knows that,” said counsel, adding that the jury had been told very specific information, including that Murray was the target, his date of birth, the route he was taking, and the fact that drugs would be found. He said that once this evidence was given by the prosecution, a warning should have been attached for the jury.

Counsel for the State, Kevin White BL said that the defence solicitor at the trial had said at the time that he had the authority to run this case, and a jury was empanelled.

“That was the choice Mr Murray made, no gun was put to his head, that was his freedom of choice. He could have chosen any senior or junior counsel, but he decided he wanted his lawyer to run that case,” said Mr White.

Mr White told the court that the prosecution had at the time spoken to the trial solicitor, who had represented himself as having the authority and the ability to run the case. Counsel said that the prosecution raised with the solicitor the fact that there was going to be evidence given that his client’s vehicle was under surveillance.

“I showed him the various portions of the statements, and I was given permission to run that,” said Mr White, adding that the prosecution case had been opened in that manner because there had been an agreement that the evidence could be led in such a way.

“I was given permission to lead that confidential information, there was no objection to that,” said counsel, going on to say that the purpose of adducing this evidence was to demonstrate to the jury why gardaí had taken the position they did.

Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy, presiding over the three-judge court, remarked that there did not seem to be any need to give that information at all.

Mr White replied that consent was given to his leading that information.

He pointed out that the trial solicitor said he was distracted on the day of the trial, and that the solicitor had also said his assumption was that the information given would be different.

“My understanding was that this was agreed, and there was no objection to it,” said Mr White, to which Mr Justice McCarthy said that the trial solicitor had asserted that he assumed the prosecution would not go as far as they did.

Mr Justice Brian O’Moore said that it seemed very significant that the court needed to resolve this issue of fact before proceeding.

Mr White requested time to consult with the Director of Public Prosecutions, with the matter adjourned to later in the day. When the case was recalled after lunch, Mr White said the DPP was of the view that factual matters had not been fully addressed in terms of the affidavits before the court, so more time was needed to do that.

Mr Justice McCarthy granted that application, with the matter put in for mention on July 14 next.