The High Court has ruled that a prosecution for criminal damage does not require a complaint from the property owner, evidence identifying an owner, or a valuation of the damage. It answered “no” to all four questions referred by the District Court, including whether the defendant should receive a direction that there was no case to answer.
The ruling arose from a charge alleging that David Cooper defaced headstones with graffiti at St Finbarr’s Cemetery in Cork between 28 and 29 March 2013. At a District Court hearing, the prosecuting Garda said he had received a complaint about graffiti in a cemetery area known locally as the republican plot. He said Cooper was arrested on suspicion of causing the damage, interviewed and made admissions. The interview memorandum was put in evidence.
Under cross-examination, the Garda agreed there was no estimate of the damage’s value and no complaint from anyone claiming to own the cemetery. Asked who owned it, he said it was “the people of Ireland”. After the prosecution evidence, the defence applied for a direction of no case to answer. The District Court referred the legal questions to the High Court.
The defence argued that the prosecution had to produce some evidence that the damaged property was owned, even if the Act presumes that property belongs to someone other than the accused. It also argued that applying the presumption without such evidence could place an impossible burden on the defence and conflict with the presumption of innocence. The prosecutor submitted that the statutory presumption meant ownership evidence and an owner’s complaint were unnecessary, and that damage did not have to be quantified.
Mr Justice Noonan said the Act’s definition of property did not mean that an item first had to be proved to have an owner. He said the statutory presumption was intended to address cases where the true legal owner could not be identified. For real property, he said, the law did not recognise land without ownership; for personal property, circumstances could help establish whether it had been abandoned.
The judge also said the Act did not require proof of who the owner was or of the amount of damage. He answered “no” to each of the four questions: whether an owner’s complaint was necessary; whether the prosecution had to produce evidence that the property was owned by another; whether it had to prove the cost or value of damage; and whether the defence application for a no-case direction should be granted.
The judgment was delivered on 16 April 2015. It answered the legal questions referred by the District Court; it did not itself determine the defendant’s guilt or order a conviction.