The High Court has refused a judicial review challenge to a woman’s conviction for possessing a screwdriver and gloves with the intention that they be used in a burglary, finding that an alleged ambiguity in the charge sheet did not prejudice her defence.
The case concerned a charge arising from an incident on Leopardstown Avenue, Dublin. The charge sheet referred to a 12-inch screwdriver and “gloves”. Two pairs of gloves were found: one in the car the woman had been driving, and another in the rear foot well of the Garda patrol car that took her to Blackrock Garda Station after her arrest.
At the Circuit Court appeal hearing, the prosecution clarified that the gloves in the charge were those found in the patrol car. The woman’s counsel argued that the charge sheet did not identify which pair was meant, making it difficult to prepare a defence. The prosecution submitted that the evidence and cross-examination showed the parties understood which gloves were at issue and that no specific prejudice had been identified.
The High Court found that the charge sheet’s reference to the incident location could apply to the gloves later found in the patrol car. It noted evidence that the patrol car had been checked before the woman was placed in it and that the gloves were discovered after she was taken to the station. The court also pointed to cross-examination about whether she could have placed the gloves in the foot well while handcuffed, and whether her daughter might have put them there.
The court accepted that the wording could be argued to contain some ambiguity, but found that everyone had proceeded on the basis that the charge concerned the patrol-car gloves. It concluded that the woman’s counsel had been able to cross-examine fully on that issue and that a general assertion of prejudice was insufficient. It also rejected the argument that the Circuit Court judge reversed the burden of proof by asking whether the defence had made enquiries about which gloves were charged.
The woman had been convicted in the District Court, and her conviction was affirmed on appeal in the Circuit Court. The High Court held that the Circuit Court judge had acted within jurisdiction and that judicial review was not a further appeal on the correctness of the verdict. It refused all relief sought. The parties were given two weeks to make written submissions on the terms of the final order, costs and any other matters arising.