The Supreme Court ruled that evidence of drugs and other items found in an apartment occupied by BA should have been admitted at trial, overturning the Circuit Court judge’s decision to exclude it.
In a judgment delivered on 10 May 2016, O’Donnell J said the package addressed to “Johnson Kelly” and opened at Store Street Garda Station was a “postal packet” for the purposes of the relevant legislation. He agreed with Charleton J, whose account of the facts and legislation he adopted, that the opening was lawful under customs powers applied to members of An Garda Síochána.
The prosecution case concerned possession of drugs found in an apartment BA was occupying. The search followed a warrant issued under section 26 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977, as amended. BA was not charged with an offence relating to interference with a postal packet.
The respondent argued that opening the package without the required authorisation breached postal legislation. On that basis, the respondent said, information obtained from the package could not support a valid search warrant, making the evidence found in the apartment inadmissible. O’Donnell J said the prosecution had not initially sought to rely on evidence of what happened at Store Street as part of its case against BA.
O’Donnell J concluded that the evidence found at the address—including cocaine in the package, cannabis resin and a forged driving licence—was admissible, and that no issue required its exclusion. He reasoned that customs provisions authorised officers to examine and seize prohibited goods, including controlled drugs, and that legislation extended relevant customs powers to Garda members. He said there was no requirement for an officer to invoke a particular power before opening a package; the question was whether the action was lawful.
The judgment did not decide what effect a breach of the postal legislation or an unauthorised interception would have had on the warrant or the admissibility of evidence obtained under it, because O’Donnell J found no such illegality here. He also did not determine whether a privacy right was engaged, noting that the issue had not been argued and would require more extensive argument.