The High Court has refused an application to quash a man’s robbery conviction, concluding that the judicial review was misconceived and that the complaints about the District Court trial did not justify relief.
Boby Bogdan sought certiorari to quash his conviction for robbery, along with declaratory relief and an order preventing a further trial. He argued that the District Judge failed to address defence submissions properly and admitted identification and search evidence in breach of his rights. The High Court, in a judgment delivered by Ms Justice Iseult O’Malley on 27 November 2015, refused the relief sought.
The robbery was alleged to have happened on 5 August 2013 at 424 North Circular Road, Dublin 7. The injured party, Barry McGuckian, said he was robbed of a phone, jewellery and cash worth about €750. At trial, he identified Bogdan among a group of men after gardaí brought occupants of a building outside. Garda evidence was that a search of Bogdan recovered a watch and chain ring identified as the injured party’s property. Bogdan denied involvement and said nothing had been found in his pockets.
Bogdan was absent when the trial began on 22 January 2014, and the District Court proceeded after second call. The injured party had travelled from Northern Ireland to give evidence. The trial was adjourned after a bench warrant was issued. At the next hearing, the judge refused a defence application to adjourn so the injured party could be recalled for further cross-examination. Bogdan later gave evidence and was convicted. The District Judge imposed a €350 fine, payable within six months.
Justice O’Malley said the initial defence challenge to the identification was directed at its reliability and weight, rather than its admissibility. At that stage, the judge was deciding whether there was a case to answer and could consider the identification alongside the evidence that stolen property had been found on Bogdan. The High Court also noted that the defence submissions about the search relied on an incomplete note: the trial evidence was that Bogdan had been told he had been identified in connection with an offence, that evidence might be found on him, and that he would be searched.
On the alleged unlawful entry, Justice O’Malley found the transcript did not show the District Judge refusing to hear the submission. Rather, defence counsel appeared to decide not to pursue it after the judge’s initial reaction. The High Court also considered that the common entrance hall of a multi-unit building was not part of an individual resident’s dwelling for the constitutional argument advanced.
The judge said whether the District Judge was right that he did not need to identify a specific statutory search power was a matter for an appeal or possibly a case stated, not judicial review. She concluded that the conviction was self-explanatory in light of the trial judge’s acceptance that the property had been found on Bogdan and his rejection of Bogdan’s evidence. The prosecution retained the burden of proof. The High Court refused the requested relief; it did not order a retrial.