The Court of Appeal has dismissed Francis McGuinness’s appeal against the dismissal of his action over a Garda search of his business premises in Cloghran, Co Dublin, in August 2014.
Mr Justice Allen, with whom Ms Justice Burns and Ms Justice Hyland agreed, found no basis to overturn the High Court’s findings. The High Court had found that a District Court warrant was obtained before the search and that it was executed lawfully. The Court of Appeal said the existence of the warrant was not challenged at trial or on appeal, and that proof of it did not require production of the original document.
Gardaí searched Mr McGuinness’s yard and offices at Pinnock Hill on 23 August 2014, cutting locks on two gates to enter. Mr McGuinness claimed the search was unlawful or carried out unlawfully, that the gates were damaged, and that documents and other items had been taken. His action sought damages and orders including the return of seized items and a copy of the warrant.
The appeal focused on the State’s failure to produce the original warrant. The Court of Appeal said the case pleaded and the evidence at trial did not put the existence of a warrant in issue. A sergeant’s evidence that he had applied for and obtained the warrant was unchallenged, and Mr McGuinness had introduced a copy of it into evidence. The court also rejected a new argument raised on appeal that the warrant was invalid because it referred to an “offence” rather than an “arrestable offence”. It had not been pleaded or argued at trial, and the court said the warrant referred to the relevant statutory provision, which concerned an arrestable offence.
The High Court had found that the Gardaí acted appropriately in carrying out the search and that car keys, a cheque book and envelopes of cash had not been unlawfully taken. Evidence at trial was that the documents and property seized had been returned to Mr McGuinness’s solicitors on 12 September 2014. The Court of Appeal said there was no evidence linking the return to the proceedings.
The High Court had ordered Mr McGuinness to pay the defendants’ costs of the action. The Court of Appeal found no identified error in that decision and dismissed the appeal on all grounds. It said the Commissioner and the State were presumptively entitled to the costs of the appeal, while allowing Mr McGuinness 14 days from electronic delivery of the judgment to make a written submission seeking a different costs order. The judgment was delivered on 24 January 2025.