The Court of Criminal Appeal refused Thomas Hughes’s application to extend the time for appealing his convictions, concluding that justice did not require his guilty pleas to be reopened after a later constitutional ruling concerning search warrants.
Hughes pleaded guilty in the Special Criminal Court on 1 November 2011 to possessing explosives and possessing a firearm without a certificate. The offences related to searches on 26 January 2011: explosives were found at premises in Hundred Acres, Monivea, and a firearm was found at 28 An Tuairin, Dublin Road, Tuam. He received a five-year sentence on the explosives count and a concurrent two-year sentence on the firearm count on 6 December 2011.
He did not appeal within the 21-day time limit. On 26 April 2012, he applied for more time, saying he had initially intended to appeal his sentence but had not instructed his solicitor in time because he was in prison. The court called that explanation inadequate for an application concerning his convictions, and found that his intention to appeal conviction arose only after the Supreme Court’s February 2012 decision in *Damache*.
In *Damache*, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a provision that permitted a search warrant to be issued by a person who was not independent. Hughes argued that the provision had been used for the searches underlying his convictions. The Court of Criminal Appeal noted that the firearm was found in his home, while the explosives were found at premises that were not his dwelling. It said the constitutional point appeared relevant only to the firearm count, which carried the concurrent sentence.
The court considered the effect of guilty pleas and later constitutional decisions. It said Hughes had pleaded freely after advice from his solicitor and counsel, thereby acknowledging his guilt. The court also observed that the guilty plea relieved the prosecution of the need to produce the evidence obtained in the searches. It rejected the argument that his plea was less significant because he believed the search law was valid at the time.
The court refused the extension of time. Its decision concerned whether Hughes could bring a late appeal against his convictions; it did not determine a new appeal on the merits or alter the sentences imposed in 2011.