The Supreme Court has declared unlawful the seizure of computer devices from Patrick Quirke’s home during the investigation into Bobby Ryan’s murder. The Court left open what consequences should follow, saying further argument was needed on that issue.
In a judgment delivered on 20 March 2023, Mr Justice Peter Charleton said the search warrant authorised a search of the physical premises and the seizure of relevant physical evidence. But the gardaí had not told the District Court judge that they intended to seize computers to examine their digital contents, or set out grounds for that digital search in the sworn application.
The Court held that searching a computer’s digital space is a distinct intrusion from searching the place where the device is found. Judicial authorisation was required for that step. The warrant remained valid for the physical search, but did not authorise taking computers for digital examination. The Court’s order was limited to declaring the seizure unlawful; it did not decide the admissibility of the computer evidence or the effect on Quirke’s conviction.
Quirke was convicted of murdering Ryan by a Central Criminal Court jury on 1 May 2019, after a 71-day trial. Ryan’s remains were found in a tank on a farm at Fawnagowan in April 2013. The farm was leased by Quirke. Forensic examination of a computer hard drive had revealed searches about the decomposition of human remains, which the prosecution relied on as one strand of circumstantial evidence.
The appeal was admitted on two limited grounds: the requirements for identifying what may be searched for in a warrant application, and the Director of Public Prosecutions’ discretion over which witnesses to call, particularly experts. The Court rejected the challenge concerning expert evidence. It found no unfairness in the prosecution’s decision not to call Dr Michael Curtis, a Deputy State Pathologist, to give evidence about a possible vehicle collision. The defence was able to call evidence advancing that theory, and the Court said this did not shift the burden of proof from the prosecution.
The judgment records that the trial judge found no evidence that investigators deliberately withheld their interest in computers or used the warrant application as a rubber stamp. The Supreme Court did not disturb that finding. It nevertheless concluded that the failure to bring the proposed digital search to the issuing judge’s attention meant the computer seizure was unauthorised.