The Supreme Court ruled that there was no unlawful interception of a parcel containing cocaine that Irish law-enforcement officers brought from Germany and opened in Dublin. It held that customs powers authorised the examination, so the evidence was admissible. The Court answered the first question referred to it; a second question about the consequences of an unlawful interception did not arise.
The case came before the Court on a consultative case stated referred by the Circuit Criminal Court judge after ruling evidence inadmissible at trial. The accused, anonymised in the appeal as Robert, had been acquitted by direction on the remaining charges after that ruling. He had already pleaded guilty to two cannabis-possession counts. The Supreme Court appeal did not decide his guilt on the cocaine or false-instrument charges.
The parcel had been posted from Brazil to an address in Phibsboro. German authorities identified it in Frankfurt, and an Irish customs officer took it to Dublin without opening it. A garda inspector opened it at Store Street Garda Station and found cocaine concealed in a hollowed-out children’s book. Gardaí resealed the parcel and delivered it to Robert’s flat. After Robert took it inside, officers obtained a search warrant and found the parcel unopened, along with cannabis and forged driving licences. The trial judge excluded the parcel and search evidence, finding the interference unlawful and the warrant tainted.
The Supreme Court held that Irish postal protections did not govern the parcel while it was being carried from Germany to Ireland by an Irish law-enforcement officer, outside the ordinary course of post. Although the Minister had not authorised the opening under the 1993 Act, the Court said that authorisation was not required. It also held that customs powers, extended to gardaí by legislation, provided lawful authority to examine the parcel.
The Court rejected the argument that the inspector had to have a particular statutory power in mind, or invoke it at the time, for the examination to be lawful. Whether the power existed and was exercised as the law contemplated was an objective question, the judgment said. Since there had been no unlawful interference, the trial judge had no need to balance the seriousness of any illegality against the charges or decide whether to exclude the evidence. The Court did not decide the second referred question on the admissibility consequences of an unlawful interception.