The Court of Appeal has reversed a Circuit Court judge’s decision to exclude evidence gathered in a search of Superintendent Edmond O’Neill’s home, ruling that legal errors undermined the exclusion. The evidence is to be admitted at trial, but the appeal court made no finding on the truth of the allegations or the evidence’s reliability; those questions remain for a jury.
The prosecution appeal concerned a preliminary hearing under section 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2021. In November 2023, the Circuit Court had excluded evidence after finding that search warrants issued in May 2019 were invalid because of deliberate deception and inadequate information. It also found that Anne-Marie Hassett, who lived at the home, had been unlawfully detained and questioned. The prosecution appealed under section 7 of the 2021 Act.
The charges concern alleged interference with the course of justice between May 2018 and May 2019. The Garda investigation had concerned alleged corruption. The Court of Appeal stressed that a search warrant authorises evidence gathering and is not proof of guilt. It said the sworn information put before the District Court judge provided more than enough basis for reasonable suspicion to search the home, including for phones, computers and other electronic devices.
The appeal court held that the trial judge’s adverse inference from the absence of a Detective Inspector was unjustified. The allegation that the witness had been deliberately withheld was not put directly to the State witnesses, and no one had asked the trial judge to call him. The court said the missing-witness reasoning was wrong in law and was foundational to the finding of deception.
It also set aside the finding that Hassett had been unlawfully detained. The court said the evidence did not establish that she had been prevented from leaving during the search, and that being asked to remain in one place while officers searched did not, by itself, amount to detention. It further held that the trial judge had no basis to exclude the electronic evidence because of a claimed break in continuity: any deficiency in the chain of custody could go to weight rather than admissibility.
Applying section 7, the Court of Appeal concluded that the excluded evidence was potentially significant and should be restored to the prosecution case. It reversed the November 2023 ruling and ordered the evidence admitted. The jury will decide what weight, if any, to give it. The judgment does not determine whether any accused committed an offence.