The Supreme Court allowed Michael Boyce’s appeal and set aside his convictions after ruling that gardaí had taken a blood sample unlawfully while he was in custody. The Court held that the statutory procedures for forensic samples applied even when a detained person agreed voluntarily to provide one.
Boyce had been convicted by a jury in the Central Criminal Court on six counts involving rape, attempted rape, indecent assault or sexual assault. His appeal concerned the blood sample and DNA evidence derived from it, alongside challenges to the trial judge’s directions and the prosecution expert’s use of DNA databases.
He was arrested on 10 July 1996 on suspicion of rape and detained under section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1984. During questioning, a detective asked him for a blood sample to test in connection with the alleged 1989 offence. Boyce was told he did not have to provide it and that test results could be used in evidence. He agreed, and a doctor took the sample at the Garda station. The trial judge found that Boyce understood the caution and gave the sample freely.
The prosecution accepted that gardaí had not followed the procedures in the Criminal Justice (Forensic Evidence) Act 1990. Those procedures included authorisation by a superintendent, specified information being given to the person, and written consent for a blood sample. The DNA evidence linked Boyce to semen stains from the complainant’s underwear relating to offences in 1989 and 1991. The prosecution also relied on other evidence to argue that the same person committed the offences.
Justice Fennelly said the 1990 Act provided a procedure for obtaining samples by consent from people in custody, together with safeguards. Allowing gardaí to avoid those safeguards by seeking consent under common law would be “inherently inconsistent and potentially unfair”, he said. The failure to follow the Act contravened it, although the Court found no breach of Boyce’s constitutional rights.
The Court also rejected the challenges to the trial judge’s corroboration directions and to the expert’s reliance on DNA databases as part of accepted scientific material. It concluded, however, that the DNA evidence had been obtained unlawfully. The appeal was allowed and the convictions were set aside. The judgment does not state that Boyce was acquitted or specify any further order about a retrial.