The Court of Criminal Appeal has upheld a Circuit Court ruling that a search warrant for a Drogheda premises was invalid, leaving the evidence obtained under it inadmissible. The court dismissed the Director of Public Prosecutions’ appeal and refused the respondent’s separate application to dismiss the appeal because of delay.
The warrant concerned a search at 308 Rathmullen Park, Drogheda, on 16 July 2010. Desmond Collins faced seven charges: five relating to alleged possession of diamorphine and cannabis at the Drogheda address, including possession with intent to supply and possession of diamorphine valued above €13,000; and two relating to alleged possession of diamorphine at Santry Garda Station. The judgment said all charges depended on the warrant. Collins had also made admissions while under arrest, but the Director accepted on appeal that if the warrant was invalid, the arrest and subsequent detention were unlawful. The court expressed no view on that legal consequence.
The warrant, issued by District Judge Patrick Clyne, was headed “Dublin Metropolitan District” and described the Drogheda premises as being “in the said District”. The parties accepted that Drogheda was outside that district, although Judge Clyne had jurisdiction to issue a warrant for the premises in the Louth area. The appeal concerned the warrant’s wording, not whether the judge had substantive authority or whether the statutory requirements for issuing it had been met.
The court examined earlier decisions on errors appearing on warrants. It concluded that the incorrect district description was not a harmless misdescription: it stated a jurisdiction that would not have authorised the warrant for the address. Following the Court of Criminal Appeal’s earlier decision in *DPP v McCarthy*, the court held that it could not distinguish this case or overrule that decision. It therefore upheld the Circuit Court judge’s ruling that the warrant was invalid and the evidence inadmissible.
The Director’s appeal submissions were lodged in November 2013, although the Circuit Court order had been made on 17 May 2012. The Director’s counsel accepted that the delay was largely his responsibility and resulted from an oversight. The court said appeals of this kind should be handled promptly, but declined to dismiss this appeal: Collins had not sought to expedite it, and his application came almost six months after the default had been remedied and a week before the appeal hearing.
The court said the law on warrant validity and the admission of evidence obtained under warrants was unsatisfactory and suggested the issues could usefully be reviewed by the Supreme Court. It also said it lacked power to overrule *McCarthy*.