The High Court has ordered Yavor Poptoshev to pay the costs of the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions after rejecting his request for no order as to costs following an unsuccessful constitutional challenge concerning police access to devices seized under a search warrant.
Mr Justice Conleth Bradley delivered the costs ruling on 22 January 2025. The earlier judgment, [2024] IEHC 721, had refused Mr Poptoshev’s challenge to sections 48(5)(b)(i), 49(1)(c) and 49(2) of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001.
Those provisions allow gardaí acting under a warrant to operate a computer at a place being searched and require a person with lawful access to provide a password needed to operate it. Failure to comply is an offence, and the legislation provides for arrest. Mr Poptoshev argued that the powers disproportionately interfered with the privilege against self-incrimination and infringed his constitutional rights.
In the costs hearing, both sides accepted that the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in *Little v Chief Appeals Officer* set out the principles relevant to costs in unsuccessful public-law challenges. The Attorney General accepted that Mr Poptoshev’s case fell within the general definition of public-interest proceedings. The question before Mr Justice Bradley was how to exercise the court’s discretion on costs.
The judge concluded that the challenge did not raise a point of law of general public importance that was novel, unclear or required legislative change. He said the complexity arose from the context of the investigation, rather than the legal issues. The earlier judgment had found that the self-incrimination privilege was not engaged, including because the passwords existed independently of Mr Poptoshev’s will, and had upheld the relevant provisions against his challenge.
The earlier judgment also treated a Google Pixel 4, a Google Pixel 6 and an Asus laptop as “computers” under the Act. The judge noted that the search warrant itself had not been challenged and that it followed sworn information describing alleged offences and the possibility that electronic devices would be searched. He also considered that costs were unlikely to deter others, noting the general availability of the Legal Aid – Custody Issues Scheme, which Mr Poptoshev had not ultimately pursued.
The court ordered the Attorney General and the DPP to receive their costs against Mr Poptoshev, including any reserved costs. If the parties cannot agree the amount, it is to be adjudicated by the Office of the Legal Costs Adjudicators. If an appeal is brought, execution of the costs orders is stayed until it is determined or the Court of Appeal makes a further or earlier order. The ruling does not state that an appeal has been brought.