The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed a challenge to a search warrant used in the investigation of a rape, finding that the warrant remained valid despite not following the form prescribed by District Court rules. It therefore upheld the trial court’s decision not to exclude evidence obtained in the search.
The appeal concerned a conviction after a jury returned unanimous verdicts on 11 counts against Przemyslaw Jakubowski. He had been sentenced to 15 years in prison. The court’s judgment, delivered by O’Donnell J. on 31 July 2014, said the central and only issue on appeal was the validity of the warrant issued on 9 March 2011.
The judgment recounted that a woman was attacked in a public toilet in a rural town. Investigators recovered an empty beer can and tights packaging at the scene, and shop CCTV showed a man buying a can of lager and tights. The man was identified as Jakubowski. During a search of his home, gardaí seized women’s underwear; forensic analysis found a DNA profile matching the victim’s on several items. His fingerprints were also found on the beer can.
The appellant argued that the warrant was invalid because it referred to the judge hearing “evidence on oath,” language used in the original 1997 legislation, rather than the 2006 amendment’s phrase “information on oath.” He also relied on District Court rules requiring a written sworn information and a warrant in a prescribed form. The judgment noted that a written information had in fact been provided, and that no one argued its contents were insufficient to justify issuing the warrant.
The court rejected the argument that “information on oath” necessarily meant a written document. It also accepted that the warrant departed from the prescribed form, but held that the relevant rules governed practice and procedure rather than the District Court’s jurisdiction to issue a warrant. Applying provisions stating that a departure from a prescribed form does not invalidate proceedings where the form remains sufficient in substance and effect, the court concluded the warrant was valid.
The court held that entry to the home was lawful and that the trial court was right not to exclude the evidence obtained under the warrant. It did not need to decide whether the written-information requirement in the rules was beyond the rule-making authority. The appeal was dismissed.