The Court of Appeal has ruled that Gardaí unlawfully entered a woman’s home in Sallins, Co Kildare, in 2012, finding the State had not established reasonable cause to believe a man wanted under a bench warrant was inside. The court allowed the woman’s appeal and remitted the case to the High Court for an assessment of damages.
The appeal concerned the dismissal of Judyta Rozmyslowicz’s claim by the High Court in 2016. The Gardaí entered her dwelling without her consent while seeking her then partner, Sebastian Snaidy, who had failed to attend a High Court hearing and was the subject of a bench warrant.
The Court of Appeal said the decisive question was whether the Gardaí had reasonable cause under section 6(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1997 to enter the home by force. The parties did not materially dispute that the entry was forcible or that Ms Rozmyslowicz injured her ankle when the door was pushed open.
The High Court had found the entry lawful, accepting that Detective Garda Hanrahan had reasonable suspicion Mr Snaidy was in the house. That conclusion relied on evidence that Garda Joanne O’Sullivan had reported seeing a hand at an upstairs window. But the High Court judge had preferred Ms Rozmyslowicz’s account that Garda O’Sullivan reported seeing movement at the net curtain, rather than a hand.
The Court of Appeal said Detective Garda Hanrahan had accepted that the other information available to him, including Mr Snaidy’s bail address and his car in the driveway, did not by itself provide reasonable cause. The reported sighting of a hand was the additional information that led him to decide to enter. Since the trial judge found that Garda O’Sullivan had not said she saw a hand, the evidential basis for reasonable cause was missing, the appeal court held.
It concluded that the Gardaí had not discharged the evidential burden of showing reasonable cause to believe Mr Snaidy was present. The forced entry was therefore not authorised by law and amounted to trespass and a violation of Ms Rozmyslowicz’s constitutional right to the inviolability of her dwelling under Article 40.5.
The appeal court did not decide the remaining grounds of appeal. It remitted the case to the High Court for assessment of damages; the judgment did not specify an amount.