The High Court has upheld the legal basis for trespass convictions arising from an incident outside two houses on Mount Merrion Avenue, Blackrock, finding that prosecutors did not have to call the homeowners to prove that permission to enter had not been given.
Jimmy Connors had been prosecuted in Tallaght District Court over his presence at 86 and 88 Mount Merrion Avenue on January 10, 2014. He was charged under section 11 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994, which criminalises certain trespassing where the circumstances support an inference of an intention to commit an offence or interfere unlawfully with property.
Garda Andrew Doyle told the District Court that he saw Connors and two other men huddled around the front doors of the houses at about 2pm. When questioned, the men gave differing and changing explanations, including that they were looking for work or collecting money. They said they did not know the residents.
The defence argued that the prosecution had to call the owners or occupiers to establish that Connors had no permission to enter the properties.
District Judge Bridget Reilly rejected that argument. She found that the surrounding circumstances were sufficient to infer that the men were trespassers and convicted Connors. The legal issue was then referred to the High Court by way of case stated.
Mr Justice Hedigan agreed that being a trespasser is an element the prosecution must prove. However, he held that direct evidence from an owner or occupier is not always required.
In this case, the Garda's observations, the men's changing accounts and their evasive responses provided ample evidence from which the District Court could conclude beyond reasonable doubt that they lacked permission and were present as trespassers with the required criminal intent.
The ruling establishes the legal questions posed in the case stated. It does not amount to a fresh trial of the facts.