The Supreme Court has ruled that Yavor Poptoshev must bear the State parties' High Court costs in his challenge over compelled access to digital devices, but that each side should bear its own costs of the Supreme Court appeal.
The costs ruling, delivered by Mr Justice Charleton on 25 March 2026, followed the court's substantive judgment of 20 November 2025 in [2025] IESC 47.
Poptoshev had challenged section 49(1)(c) of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 after being charged with failing to comply with a lawful requirement to provide passwords or otherwise assist access to computer devices seized under warrant. He sought to prohibit his trial, have the provision declared unconstitutional and obtain an advance ruling that mobile phones were not computers within the meaning of the Act.
The Supreme Court rejected those arguments. It held that smartphones fell within the statutory definition and that questions about admissibility were for the criminal trial rather than judicial review.
However, the court also clarified an important constitutional limit. It held that the privilege against self-incrimination prevents the prosecution from using a compelled password disclosure or compelled biometric act as evidence against an accused where it could support an inference such as possession of the device. By contrast, material already stored on the device may be accessed under lawful authority and used at trial.
In the costs ruling, the State parties sought their costs in both courts. Poptoshev argued that the public importance of the case justified no costs order.
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court costs order should remain because the proceedings were brought in Poptoshev's own interest and included unsuccessful attempts to secure advance evidential rulings and stop the prosecution. But it made no order for Supreme Court costs because the appeal had been necessary to clarify the law on self-incrimination.