The Supreme Court dismissed most of Jason Brady’s appeal against an order made under section 51 of the Criminal Justice Act 1994 to assist an English criminal investigation, but declared that his mobile phone could not be transmitted to English police. The court also accepted the Minister’s undertaking that medical evidence about Brady would not be sent to England.
The judgment, delivered by Denham J on 29 July 2005, concerned an English request for assistance in an investigation into the death of Charles William Tandy in Birmingham. The request described allegations that a man driving a stolen car struck and killed Mr Tandy while fleeing. Those matters were allegations under investigation; the judgment said Brady had not been charged in England and no trial proceedings had begun there.
The Minister had nominated District Judge Gerard Haughton to receive specified material, including a photograph, fingerprints, clothing and mobile phone information. The Supreme Court held that the section 51 process was a limited statutory procedure for mutual assistance, not a trial or the administration of justice. It found there was generally no requirement to notify a person under investigation of such a request, and no exceptional circumstances requiring notice had been established in this case.
The court concluded that the judge’s decision to include the mobile phone itself went beyond the request. The request sought subscriber or registration details and billing information for a specified period, not the phone itself. The court therefore allowed the appeal to the extent of declaring that the Minister was not entitled to transmit the phone to English police. The judgment’s conclusion otherwise affirmed the High Court, subject to this variation and the undertaking on medical evidence.
The medical material had been the subject of confusion during the original process, which the judgment said had been presented with the appearance of a District Court hearing. The Minister’s counsel undertook that neither the doctor’s evidence nor Brady’s medical records would be transmitted. The Supreme Court treated that undertaking as resolving the issue in this appeal, leaving wider questions about medical evidence for a case in which they could be fully considered.
The judgment also rejected the arguments that the section 51 process frustrated Brady’s application under the Police (Property) Act 1897 or that section 51 was unconstitutional. It said property lawfully held by Gardaí could be retained for a criminal investigation. Denham J agreed with the order proposed by Murray C.J.; the other grounds of appeal were disallowed.