The High Court has quashed Ahmed Ayadi’s District Court conviction for handling a stolen iPhone and sent the case back for a fresh hearing, finding that the trial judge failed to properly consider several defence submissions and give reasons for rulings.
In a judgment delivered on 20 January 2017, Ms Justice Ní Raifeartaigh granted certiorari on judicial review. She found that the cumulative effect of the District Court judge’s handling of the case compromised essential features of a fair trial. She did not grant relief on the separate claim of objective bias, which she said was not the appropriate way to characterise the defects.
Mr Ayadi and a co-accused were convicted in the District Court in Dublin on 29 September 2015 of handling stolen property, contrary to section 17 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001. The prosecution case concerned an iPhone reported missing after its owner left a nightclub on Abbey Street. The owner said an app installed on the phone emailed him photographs when someone tried to access or switch off the device. Gardaí identified the two accused in the images. The phone was not recovered.
At the close of the prosecution case, the defence sought a direction to dismiss, arguing that there was insufficient evidence of the required knowledge or recklessness, that the app evidence should not be relied on without expert evidence about its operation, and that the prosecution had not shown the phone was handled otherwise than in the course of stealing. The District Court judge refused the applications and convicted both men after the defence said they would not give evidence.
The High Court considered the first refusal minimally reasoned but found that the judge had referred to the accused’s possession of the phone and the images. On the app evidence, however, the judge interrupted the defence solicitor, called the hearsay argument “outrageous” and rejected it by pointing to the photographs’ apparent probative value. The High Court said the judge had not meaningfully addressed whether the evidence was admissible and appeared also to rely on the accused’s failure to explain the photographs, contrary to the prohibition on drawing adverse inferences from silence.
The judge also failed to rule expressly on the solicitor’s submission about the applicant’s Garda interview, in which the judgment said Mr Ayadi answered “no comment” to almost all questions. The High Court found that the District Court judge later treated the failure to explain the photographs as probative without giving reasons. It also found that the judge did not meaningfully consider the separate submission about handling otherwise than in the course of stealing.
The High Court said the judge’s repeated pressure on the solicitor to decide whether the accused would give evidence left no time to consult with them after the prosecution case. Taken together, the handling of the interview, the evidential submissions and the hearing led the court to conclude that the judge had fallen into unconstitutionality by failing to properly consider submissions and explain rulings.
The order quashes the conviction and sentence and remits the matter to the District Court for a fresh hearing. The High Court did not determine whether the app evidence would be admissible at that hearing or decide the underlying charge.