The Court of Appeal has ordered a retrial of A.B. on 18 alleged waste offences after finding that key evidence from a search of a 144-acre farm had been wrongly excluded.
The prosecution arose from a County Council investigation into farmland in two townlands in County Y. An authorised council scientist, Rebecca Walsh, had visited the lands in April 2011. In August that year she obtained a District Court warrant authorising a search of approximately 144 acres containing sheds and a quarry.
The subsequent two-day search uncovered material which the prosecution said included diesel hydrocarbons, builders' waste, garden waste, chicken manure, animal carcasses and a buried bulk container holding an oily substance. Testing indicated substantial hydrocarbon contamination.
At the Circuit Court trial, A.B. challenged the warrant because the property description did not include a folio number, map or ownership details. The trial judge agreed that the description was deficient, ruled the warrant invalid and excluded the evidence obtained during the search. She later directed acquittals on all 18 counts.
The DPP appealed that ruling under legislation permitting prosecution appeals against certain acquittals.
Ms Justice Donnelly, delivering the Court of Appeal judgment, held that a search warrant does not require a perfect property description. It must identify the premises adequately and not be likely to mislead. Here, the warrant specified the acreage, two named townlands, sheds and a quarry. Those features were sufficient to identify the lands searched.
The court therefore held that the trial judge had erred in declaring the warrant invalid and excluding what both sides effectively accepted was compelling evidence.
After receiving further submissions, the court ruled on 10 March 2020 that A.B. should be retried. It accepted that years had passed and some witnesses were unavailable, but found that a fair retrial remained possible. Given the seriousness of the alleged environmental offences, the case was remitted to the Circuit Court with an expectation that it receive priority.