The Court of Criminal Appeal has allowed the Director of Public Prosecutions’ appeal against the dismissal of three drug charges after a search warrant misstated the address of the premises searched.
The warrant described the premises as “4 Marrowbone Close, Dublin 8”. The address of the premises searched was “4 Marrowbone Lane Close, Dublin 8”. The parties agreed there was no Marrowbone Close in Dublin, and the Garda who applied for the warrant had innocently believed that was the correct address. Diamorphine valued at €300,000 was found during the search.
Before the trial proper began, the accused applied under section 4(E) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1967 to dismiss all charges. The Circuit Court judge accepted that the warrant did not, on its face, cover the premises searched, but found that the applicant and issuing peace commissioner intended the warrant to cover those premises. He nevertheless dismissed the charges, considering himself bound by decisions he understood to require the address to be read literally.
The prosecution appealed under section 4(E)(7), which allows a prosecutor to appeal a dismissal and provides that, if the appeal succeeds, the trial may proceed as if the charge had never been dismissed.
The Court of Criminal Appeal reviewed earlier decisions on errors in warrants. It said that an error does not automatically invalidate a warrant. The court must consider whether the error is fundamental, including whether it affects jurisdiction or statutory requirements, whether it is a misdescription, and whether it was likely to mislead or did mislead. It acknowledged that outcomes in this area are not always predictable.
The court found no failure to meet the statutory preconditions for issuing this warrant. It treated the omission of “Lane” as a misdescription: the warrant referred imperfectly to premises that existed, rather than authorising a search of nowhere. The court concluded that a reasonable reader familiar with the area would have understood which premises were meant, and that the error had neither been calculated to mislead nor actually misled.
The appeal was allowed. The ruling did not determine the accused’s guilt or resolve the admissibility of the evidence at a trial; it reversed the dismissal, permitting the trial to proceed as though the charges had not been dismissed.