The High Court ruled that a search warrant describing premises as owned and controlled by the Joyce family did not validly authorise a search of a garage that the evidence showed was rented by Mihail Petkov. It also held that the evidence against co-accused Muhamed Delic was insufficient to sustain his conviction for possessing stolen car parts.
In a judgment delivered on 2 May 2013, Ms Justice Iseult O’Malley answered the warrant-validity question in the negative in both men’s case-stated appeals. She said the prosecution had to prove that the garage came within the warrant’s description. The evidence included Petkov’s statement that he rented the unit from David Joyce and the fact that Garda Peter Browne gained entry only after Petkov arrived with a key.
The judge said the District Court had treated the absence of a lease or proof of rent as relevant, but the accused did not bear the burden of proving the tenancy. The issue was whether the prosecution had shown that the warrant authorised entry into that particular property.
The ruling did not decide whether the seized parts could be admitted against Petkov. The judgment said there was no finding on whether the garage was his dwelling. If it was, the fruits of the search would be automatically excluded; if it was not, admissibility would depend on the rules governing illegally obtained evidence. The reasons for the Gardaí’s actions had not been examined at trial, so the High Court said it could not answer two other questions in Petkov’s appeal at this stage.
Delic’s appeal was decided on a separate evidential ground. His fingerprints were found on one of the recovered car parts, and he had said he had been in Petkov’s garage for panel-beating. Justice O’Malley held that the fingerprints established contact but did not prove possession, or knowledge or recklessness that the parts were stolen. The parts were ordinary car components in a garage where cars were worked on, and Delic had offered an innocent explanation. He did not have to prove that explanation; the District Court should reject it only if it could not reasonably be true.
The High Court answered in the negative the question whether the District Judge was correct to convict Delic. It did not answer the other questions in his case because that was unnecessary. The judgment did not set out a final order on any retrial or further proceedings.