A Supreme Court judge agreed that section 14 search warrants had to be issued within the districts where the relevant premises were located, and that the District Court judge issuing them had to sit in the appropriate district.
In a judgment delivered on 29 October 2004, Mr Justice Geoghegan said he agreed with Mr Justice Fennelly’s judgment on both an appeal and a cross-appeal brought by Dylan Creaven, Silicon Technologies (Europe) Limited and Bradenville Holdings Limited. Justice Geoghegan added observations on the appeal but none on the cross-appeal.
The issues identified in the High Court concerned whether District Judge David Anderson could issue warrants while assigned to more than one district, and whether he could issue them when not physically present in the relevant district, except for a warrant issued in the Dublin Metropolitan District.
Justice Geoghegan agreed that a District Court judge could be assigned to more than one district. He said the multiple assignment in this case could not be challenged, but reserved his view on whether assignments made for a particular application would always be proper. He stressed that the propriety of the assignment was not an issue before either the High Court or the Supreme Court.
On the territorial issue, he agreed with Justice Fennelly that the District Court was intended to be a local court with limited territorial jurisdiction. He concluded that the warrants had to be issued in the districts where the premises were situated, despite the silence of the legislation creating the warrant power.
Justice Geoghegan said the judge had to act judicially and carry out the function while sitting in court. Given the District Court’s territorial limits, he said the sitting had to be in the appropriate district. He said it made no difference to the outcome whether issuing the warrant was itself classified as a judicial act.
The judgment records agreement with Justice Fennelly on the orders to be made on the appeal and cross-appeal, but this two-page judgment does not state the terms of those orders. It does not set out the underlying allegations or identify the premises searched.