The Court of Appeal has dismissed William Wall and James Cash’s appeal against their convictions and sentences for four burglaries, rejecting challenges to the Garda search power and the evidence left to the jury.
The men were convicted in the Circuit Court in Cork on 7 November 2013. Each received a seven-year prison sentence, with two years suspended for Wall and one year suspended for Cash. They had been acquitted of three further burglary counts and of possessing implements intended for use in a burglary.
The appeal arose from burglaries in the Cork area on 1 and 2 December 2012. After a burglary at a home in Glendale Drive, Glasheen, on 1 December, a family member followed a car with “KE” registration plates and kept Gardaí informed of its route. Gardaí stopped it on the South Link Road. Thomas Wall, a co-accused, was driving; Cash was in the front passenger seat and William Wall in the back.
A jacket linked to the Glendale burglary was found in the boot during a roadside search. A later, more detailed search at Togher Garda station found jewellery concealed in socks beneath the passenger footwell and cash in the car’s roof lining. The appeal judgment says those items were linked to various burglaries.
The appellants argued that section 8 of the Criminal Law Act 1976 no longer authorised a vehicle search for burglary after the Larceny Act 1916 was repealed and burglary was provided for under the 2001 Act. They said the roadside search, detention, arrest, seizure and later search were connected, making the evidence unconstitutionally obtained.
The Court of Appeal rejected that interpretation. It held that the 2001 Act’s provisions meant the 1976 search power continued to apply to burglary, saying it was impossible to believe the Oireachtas intended to remove the power to stop and search vehicles in burglary cases. The court said the Director of Public Prosecutions could also rely on Gardaí’s common law powers, but did not need to decide that alternative because it found the statutory power applied. It made no determination on the possible relevance of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in D.P.P. v. J.C., saying the issue had not been argued and was unnecessary to decide.
The appellants also said there was insufficient evidence to leave the case to the jury, including because they were passengers and there was no forensic evidence connecting them to the burglary or items. The appeal court held that the circumstances—including the car’s proximity to the burgled home, its driving after being followed and the linked jacket—provided evidence for a jury to consider. It stressed that the jury had to be sure the accused participated and that mere presence was not enough.
The court found no substance in the remaining grounds, including challenges to the jury directions, alleged inconsistent verdicts, separate trials and the weight of the evidence. It rejected all grounds and dismissed the appeal.