A Circuit Court judge refused a defendant’s application for costs after a jury acquitted him of all three counts, concluding that the prosecution had been warranted.
Judge Thomas Teehan delivered the decision in Clonmel on 16 May 2014. The trial had taken place before a jury in Waterford from 2 to 9 July 2013. The defendant, Michael Ryan, had not been legally aided and sought costs for that hearing. He did not seek costs for an earlier section 4E application or an aborted trial.
The judge said the acquittal was the starting point for considering costs, but did not by itself determine the application. He applied guidance from the Court of Criminal Appeal’s 2012 decision in *The People v Bourke Waste Removal Ltd and Others*, including whether the prosecution was warranted, whether it had been conducted fairly and diligently, and how the defence had responded to the proceedings.
The defence did not allege unfair or improper conduct by the prosecution, or a lack of diligence. The judge had declined to direct the jury to acquit after the prosecution case, finding that a properly instructed jury could safely convict on the prosecution evidence. The jury later acquitted Ryan.
The judge described the defence conduct as proper and said it had not prolonged the trial through doubtful tactics. He found that the prosecution evidence at trial broadly matched the Book of Evidence, and that both supported the decision to prosecute.
In considering Ryan’s pre-trial responses, the judge recorded competing submissions. The defence pointed to the traceability of a payment involving a bank manager, advice to consult a solicitor, Ryan’s cooperation with gardaí and the absence of any unusualness in backdating loan documents. The prosecution argued that the central issue was an allegedly false loan document.
The judge said the transaction documents misstated the amount paid and omitted important repayment details, creating suspicion. He also found that Ryan’s initial statement and later failure to address those apparent anomalies had contributed to suspicion. He stressed that Ryan had the right to remain silent and that the jury’s acquittal vindicated the presumption of innocence.
The judge said the prosecution had met its burden of showing that it was warranted. He considered awarding part of the costs but concluded that this was not appropriate, and refused the application.