The Supreme Court has affirmed Patrick Quirke’s conviction for the murder of Bobby Ryan, ruling that evidence drawn from computer devices seized from Quirke’s home was admissible despite an earlier finding that the seizure for digital analysis was unlawful.
In a judgment delivered on 28 July 2023, Mr Justice Peter Charleton said the breach arose from an omission made through honest inadvertence. The court affirmed the trial judge’s admission of the computer evidence and said the conviction should stand.
The ruling followed an earlier Supreme Court judgment in the same case. That decision held that the warrant authorising a search of Quirke’s home was lawful, but that seizing computer devices to examine their digital contents was unlawful because the warrant application had not set out the need to search that digital space. The court said such searches raise substantial privacy concerns and require judicial consideration.
Quirke renewed his application to exclude all evidence obtained from the devices. He argued that the Supreme Court could not determine admissibility on appeal and that the issue required a hearing before a trial judge, so a retrial should be ordered. The prosecution argued that the Supreme Court could decide the issue.
The court applied the test set out in an earlier Supreme Court decision, The People (DPP) v JC. Under that test, evidence obtained in breach of constitutional rights is generally presumed inadmissible, but may be admitted where the prosecution establishes that the breach resulted from inadvertence or a later legal development. The court said the prosecution had to establish relevant facts beyond reasonable doubt.
The trial judge had found no deliberate withholding of the plan to search computers from the judge who issued the warrant, and found the application and execution were honest. The Supreme Court said there was no basis to disturb that finding. It also noted that the warrant remained lawful and authorised seizure of physical items reasonably believed to provide evidence of the murder. The illegality arose from the later-recognised privacy protection for examining the devices’ digital contents.
The judgment described the computer searches as a significant strand in the prosecution’s circumstantial case, which included evidence about Quirke’s interest in DNA and the decomposition of bodies. Given the importance of that evidence, the court said it could not conclude that admitting it had caused no injustice. It nevertheless held that the JC exception applied because the error was inadvertent and arose against the legal position as it was understood at the time.
The court affirmed the trial judge’s admission of the computer evidence and affirmed Quirke’s murder conviction. It did not order a retrial.