The Supreme Court dismissed the Garda Commissioner’s appeal and upheld the quashing of two search warrants for journalist Emmett Corcoran’s home and the premises of The Democrat. The Court held that the District Court had not been given highly relevant information: Corcoran had already asserted journalistic privilege when interviewed by gardaí.
The warrants were issued on 2 April 2019 under section 10 of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1997. Gardaí investigating an attack at Falsk, Strokestown, in December 2018 sought access to Corcoran’s phone and other devices, saying they might contain footage identifying suspects. Corcoran had attended the scene, recorded photographs and video, and published material online. He offered the recordings to investigators but declined to identify the person who had alerted him to the incident, citing his sources.
The phone was handed over under protest on 4 April 2019. It was switched off, and Corcoran did not provide its password. After he sought judicial review, gardaí undertook not to access its contents pending further orders. The Supreme Court judgment said that undertaking remained in place, so the phone’s contents were still secure at the time of judgment.
The High Court had allowed limited examination of phone data from 11 to 17 December 2018, subject to safeguards. The Court of Appeal later quashed the warrants, concluding that the District Court should have been told that journalistic privilege might be engaged. The Supreme Court affirmed that result, but on a narrower basis: the warrant applications omitted the earlier interview and Corcoran’s assertion of privilege. The Court held that this was a material omission that prevented the District Court from exercising its discretion on all relevant facts.
The Supreme Court described shortcomings in section 10, which does not provide a mechanism for an independent merits assessment of a journalist’s privilege claim before material is accessed. It said those structural problems could not be repaired by the courts and called for legislative action. The Court did not decide the constitutional issue, which it said had not been fully argued; relevant constitutional comments in the judgment were obiter. The Commissioner’s cross-appeal concerning access to phone contacts was not pursued and was not considered.