The Court of Criminal Appeal has allowed the Director of Public Prosecutions’ appeal against the dismissal of nine charges against Vitoldas Jagutis, restoring the charges so his trial can proceed.
The charges concerned alleged forgery and similar offences involving counterfeit driving licences, tax discs, NCT discs and insurance discs. A key part of the prosecution evidence was material found during a search on 19 October 2008 at Unit 3, Turnpike Business Centre, Ballymount, Dublin 22, under a warrant issued under section 48 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud) Offences Act 2001.
After Mr Jagutis was returned for trial, he applied under section 4E of the Criminal Procedure Act 1967 to have the charges dismissed. His case was that the search warrant was defective, making the search unlawful, and that the resulting evidence should be excluded. The Circuit Court judge accepted that argument and dismissed the charges. The DPP appealed.
The appeal court considered whether a summary dismissal application could resolve the dispute about the warrant and the admissibility of evidence from the search. It said section 4E can address admissibility where the evidence is plainly inadmissible and the case against the accused depends on it. But where allegedly illegal evidence is concerned, a court may need to weigh the circumstances surrounding the warrant and search, including how any error arose. That can require evidence beyond the Book of Evidence and cross-examination, which the court said falls outside the limited inquiry for a section 4E application.
The court noted that the search was of business premises, so the constitutional rules concerning an invalid warrant used to search a home did not apply on these facts. It did not determine whether this warrant was defective or whether evidence obtained under it should be admitted. Those questions were left to the trial judge, who must assess them on the evidence presented at trial.
The alleged flaw was a misdescription of the offences in the warrant. The appeal court said the trial judge would need to consider whether the inaccuracy was material, including whether it could have made it difficult for a person served with the warrant to understand its legal basis or what it authorised.
The court reversed the Circuit Court order and said the trial must proceed. It left the practical arrangements for resuming the trial to be discussed with counsel.