The High Court has ruled that a District Court judge may admit a Garda certificate as evidence of an exhibit’s chain of custody, even if the defence objects. The judge must direct that oral evidence be heard if the interests of justice require it, and may adjourn the trial to receive that evidence.
Mr Justice Barr delivered the ruling on 20 December 2024 in a consultative case stated by Judge Eirinn McKiernan. The question arose during the trial of Gerard Joyce, who is charged with possessing cannabis and possessing it for sale or supply. The High Court answered the legal question; it did not determine the charges or decide whether oral evidence is required in the ongoing trial.
The case stated records that gardaí searched a domestic property in Dundalk on 1 May 2021 under warrant. They said they found packaging, suspected cannabis, weighing scales and €10,100. A Garda also retrieved a Centra shopping bag containing suspected cannabis and other items from the back garden of an adjoining property. The adjoining property’s owner said the bag was not hers.
A certificate signed by Garda Anthony Connor stated that he received sealed exhibit bags from PEMS Dundalk on 5 May 2021, kept them in safe custody at PEMS Ardee, and delivered them to Forensic Science Ireland the next day. A separate analysis certificate recorded that an exhibit contained 33.7g of cannabis. An FSI witness described the laboratory’s intake and sealing procedures.
At the close of the prosecution case, the defence sought dismissal, raising issues including the exhibit numbering and the absence of Garda Connor for cross-examination. The District Court judge had accepted the certificate into evidence after receiving medical evidence that Connor could not attend. The certificate had not been objected to when it was tendered, although its contents later featured in the defence submission.
The High Court said a properly tendered section 30 certificate is admissible evidence of the matters it records and provides proof of the stated custody period. A defence objection does not give an accused a veto over its admission. The trial judge retains discretion to require oral evidence where the interests of justice demand it.
In making that decision, the judge may consider the circumstances of the case, including the identification numbers on the bags and the evidence about how they were handled and labelled. The High Court said alleged admissions by the accused were not relevant to deciding whether oral evidence about the certificate should be heard. It left that decision to the District Court judge.
The High Court made no order as to costs.