Judgment: 2016-05-10 · Court archive

Supreme Court rules evidence from intercepted package admissible

The court held there was lawful authority for Gardaí to intercept the package. It said differing views on whether it was a postal packet did not affect the result.

The Supreme Court · Appeal No. 53/2012

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • BA
  • O’Donnell J.
  • Charleton J.
  • Director of Public Prosecutions
What

The court held there was lawful authority for Gardaí to intercept the package. It said differing views on whether it was a postal packet did not affect the result.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Phibsboro
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The ruling concerned a package addressed to Mr Johnson Kelly in Phibsboro. The court said the cocaine found in it, along with cannabis resin and a forged driving licence, was admissible evidence at BA’s trial. It found there was lawful authority for the interception and no basis for excluding the evidence on the ground that it had been obtained unlawfully.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that evidence obtained from a package intercepted by Gardaí was admissible at the trial of BA, the accused/respondent in an appeal brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The ruling concerned a package addressed to Mr Johnson Kelly in Phibsboro. The court said the cocaine found in it, along with cannabis resin and a forged driving licence, was admissible evidence at BA’s trial. It found there was lawful authority for the interception and no basis for excluding the evidence on the ground that it had been obtained unlawfully.

Two members of the court, O’Donnell J. and Charleton J., expressed differing views on whether the package was a postal packet. The court said that disagreement had no impact on the outcome because of its decision that the interception was lawful.

The ruling, delivered by Chief Justice Denham on 10 May 2016, answered the question before the court by stating that there had been no unlawful interception. It does not state the outcome of BA’s trial or make any finding of guilt.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review