The Supreme Court has ruled that a Circuit Court considering an application to dismiss criminal charges may, in a clear case, consider whether the only evidence disclosed is plainly inadmissible. It quashed a judge’s decision that a search warrant’s validity could only be addressed at trial and sent the application back for reconsideration.
The ruling does not allow a full pre-trial hearing to resolve disputed facts or determine contested admissibility issues. The Court said the application under section 4E of the Criminal Procedure Act 1967 is generally confined to the prosecution case disclosed in the book of evidence, taken at its strongest and assumed admissible. The question is whether that material discloses a sufficient case to put the accused on trial.
The case concerns seven charges relating to alleged possession of controlled drugs at premises in Clondalkin, Dublin 12, on 20 June 2002. One charge alleged possession for sale or supply of drugs worth at least €13,000. The accused was returned for trial in the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court after being charged in the District Court in April 2003.
In March 2004, he applied to have the charges dismissed, arguing that the book of evidence disclosed no admissible evidence and that the warrant did not identify the premises searched. His counsel said evidence could show that the premises searched were not those named in the warrant. The Circuit Court judge ruled that warrant validity had to be decided at trial. The High Court later dismissed the accused’s judicial review application.
The Supreme Court rejected the broader argument that section 4E allows trial courts to determine preliminary disputes of law or fact, such as contested warrant validity, detention or the admissibility of statements. Such rulings could require extensive hearings and be repeated at trial; the Court said creating a general power for binding preliminary rulings would require legislation.
However, the Court held that the judge had been wrong to refuse jurisdiction altogether. A court may admit oral evidence where required in the interests of justice to clarify matters such as the identity of persons, places or things in the documents. It may also dismiss a charge where the only evidence is plainly inadmissible, but only in the clearest cases and without resolving disputed facts. The Court noted that other evidence at trial might cast further light on the issue.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the 11 May 2004 decision. The trial court is to resume consideration of the dismissal application. The Supreme Court did not dismiss the charges or decide whether the warrant was valid. It also ruled that the statutory minimum sentence argument advanced by the accused could not affect the interpretation of section 4E.