The Supreme Court allowed Raymond Gormley’s appeal after finding that his conviction for attempted rape relied substantially on admissions made during police questioning before the solicitor he had requested arrived to advise him. It dismissed Craig White’s appeal, holding that his forensic samples were lawfully taken in an unobtrusive way before his solicitor arrived.
In a judgment delivered by Clarke J. on 6 March 2014, the Court held that the constitutional guarantee of a trial in due course of law includes, in general, a right not to be interrogated after requesting a solicitor and before having an opportunity to receive legal advice. It said any exceptions would require wholly exceptional circumstances involving a pressing and compelling need to protect other major constitutional rights. The judgment left several questions about the right’s precise scope for cases with different facts.
Gormley was arrested on 24 April 2005. He requested a solicitor, who told gardaí he would attend shortly after 4pm. Gormley’s first interview began at 3.10pm, before the solicitor arrived at 4.48pm, and included inculpatory admissions. Those statements were admitted at trial. Gormley was convicted in the Central Criminal Court of attempted rape and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment, with five years’ post-release supervision.
The Supreme Court found that Gormley had not withdrawn or waived his request, and that evidence obtained in questioning before he received the requested advice was a material element of the case against him. It held that his trial was not conducted in due course of law and allowed his appeal on the certified point.
White had been arrested at Mountjoy Prison on 13 February 2008 and requested his nominated solicitor. Gardaí reached the solicitor, who said she was coming immediately, but blood, mouth-swab and hair samples had already been taken by 8.30am. The solicitor arrived at 9.42am. White said he did not object because he believed the samples would be taken forcibly if he refused; a senior garda had told him his consent was necessary, although the law required him to provide them.
The Court held that the constitutional right to legal advice before questioning did not prevent the taking of otherwise lawful, minimally intrusive objective samples before a solicitor arrived. It rejected White’s certified appeal ground and two additional grounds. It found the arrest warrant valid despite not reciting each statutory condition, and held that the fingerprint expert’s expression of having “no doubt” about a match did not usurp the jury’s role. White’s appeal therefore failed.