The Supreme Court has ruled that a Circuit Court could consider a defendant’s pre-trial application to dismiss criminal charges on the ground that a search warrant was invalid or insufficient. It quashed a ruling that the court lacked jurisdiction and remitted the motion to the Circuit Court for consideration in accordance with law.
The decision, delivered by Mr Justice Hardiman on 20 December 2007, concerned Eamon Cruise, who faced seven charges under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The charges related to alleged possession of drugs on 20 June 2002 at premises identified in the charge as “Farrell O’Brien Premises, Killeen Road, Clondalkin, Dublin 12”. One charge was under section 15A of the 1977 Act.
Cruise applied under section 4E of the Criminal Procedure Act 1967, as amended, seeking dismissal of the charges. He argued that the book of evidence did not disclose admissible evidence that the drugs had been seized lawfully, or admissible evidence against him. His substantive challenge was that the search warrant did not properly describe or relate to the premises where Gardaí said the drugs were found.
The warrant application referred to a premises connected with Farrell O’Brien Metal Fabricators on Knockmitten Lane, Killeen Road, Dublin 12. The warrant itself described “(a premises) (land) of Farrell O’Brien, Knockmitten Lane, Killeen Road, Dublin 12”; the judgment records that one of the alternatives was meant to be deleted but was not. Cruise’s counsel said oral evidence would be needed to establish whether the place where the drugs were seized was the same as the place described in the documents.
The Circuit Court judge declined to consider the motion, holding that the warrant’s validity was for the trial judge to determine during the trial. The High Court later rejected Cruise’s judicial review application. He appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that allowing such issues to be heard in advance would alter the nature of a criminal trial. The Supreme Court held that section 4E did not exclude a challenge of this kind. It said that the provision placed the application in the “trial court” and that the former preliminary examination procedure had been abolished and replaced by a new statutory process.
The Court’s ruling concerned jurisdiction to hear the motion. It did not determine whether the warrant was invalid, whether the evidence was admissible, or whether the charges should be dismissed. Those matters were remitted to the Circuit Court. The judgment also notes Cruise’s submission that a conviction on the section 15A charge carried a ten-year statutory minimum sentence, subject to an exception for specific and exceptional circumstances; the Supreme Court said that consideration did not decide the interpretation of section 4E.