A woman who took delivery of a parcel containing ecstasy and cannabis has lost her appeal against conviction for drugs offences.

And the appeal court criticised advocates for advising clients to pursue an appeal without merit.

Chloe Nelson, 23, of Kensington Road, Douglas, was convicted in June following a five-day trial of two offences of being concerned in the production of class A ecstasy and class B cannabis and two offences of attempted possession of class A and class B drugs with intent to supply.

She was sentenced in October to three years and 11 months in custody.

The offence was committed in July last year when the prosecution said Nelson had agreed to take delivery of a parcel containing a microwave oven with controlled drugs hidden inside.

present

At the trial, she claimed she had no knowledge that when the parcel was delivered it was a microwave oven containing controlled drugs. She said she believed that the parcel contained a present for her daughter of a doll and a cup.

The microwave oven had therefore, she maintained, been accepted in error and she had no intention to possess controlled drugs or to pass on the parcel to anyone else.

Nelson appealed, her lawyer Steven Wood arguing the conviction was unsafe and should be set aside. But Judge of Appeal Jeremy Storey QC and Deemster Collas rejected the appeal, concluding there was no material irregularity in the course of the trial, nor were the convictions unsafe or unsatisfactory.

At the appeal, Nelson’s lawyer Mr Wood argued that the Crown ought to have called her cannabis supplier as a witness. He had been interviewed under caution by the police but there was insufficient evidence to charge him despite a search of his home and business premises.

A conversation between him and a defence witness in which he allegedly asked Nelson to receive a parcel on his behalf containing herbal cannabis - which she had refused but he had sent anyway - was treated as inadmissible hearsay evidence.

Mr Wood also argued that directions given by the trial judge to the jury were too brief and not balanced, effectively directing them to find the appellant guilty.

But the appeal court judges dismissed the appeal and concluded this was a one that ought not to have been pursued.

They said the hearsay evidence would have remained inadmissable at a retrial and that the criticism of the Deemster’s directions was entirely misplaced.

’We are seeing too many unarguable appeals and potential appellants, and those advising them need to reflect upon the position carefully,’ Judge of Appeal Storey and Deemster Collas said.