The Cabinet is to discuss the implications of the collapse of the case against Judge Brian Curtin when it meets next Tuesday.
The case collapsed dramatically yesterday when Judge Curtin was acquitted of possessing child pornography by direction of the trial judge, Judge Carroll Moran.
In a statement last night the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Mr McDowell, said he had "noted the outcome of the trial of Judge Brian Curtin".
"The Minister will be consulting the Attorney General, together with his Government colleagues, as to the implications of the decision and will not be making any statement until he has concluded that process," the statement said.
A Department of Justice spokesman said later that the Cabinet would discuss the implications of the case on Tuesday, but Mr McDowell would be discussing it with the Attorney General before the Cabinet meeting.
The Government and the judiciary are now faced with the dilemma of seeing Judge Curtin return to the bench, in the absence of any law or procedures to deal with the case of a judge charged with, but acquitted of, a serious criminal offence. It is unlikely that Judge Curtin will return to work soon. A spokesman for the Courts Service said yesterday that, as far as he knew, all Circuit Court cases had been allocated up to the end of September.
In Tralee yesterday Judge Moran found that the warrant under which Judge Curtin's home computer was seized was out of date, and therefore the evidence found on it was not admissible.
The decision came after Judge Moran deliberated for a day and a half, following a day of legal argument in the absence of the jury about the validity of the warrant. Mr Patrick MacEntee SC, counsel for Judge Curtin, said that the search warrant, obtained from the President of the District Court, Judge Peter Smithwick, on May 20th, 2002, was out of date by May 27th, when the search of Judge Curtin's home took place.
He pointed out that the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act specified that the warrant should be executed within seven days of the date of the warrant.
He also said that there was extensive case law from the Supreme Court stating that any evidence obtained through a defective search warrant was not admissible.
Counsel for the DPP, Ms Mary Ellen Ring SC, said that one could count seven days from the time of the warrant, which was issued at 3.20 p.m., while the search took place at 2.20 p.m., bringing it within the seven days. She also said that one could start counting the seven days from the day following the issuing of the warrant.
Judge Moran rejected these arguments. "I have no alternative but to find that the particular warrant had expired at the time of the search," he said.
He added that there were "no extraordinary excusing circumstances which would justify the admission of the evidence." Directing the jury to acquit, he said: "Many people will think this is a highly unsatisfactory result. I can't do anything about it. The gardaí were out of time. There is no other evidence."
At the conclusion of his judgment Judge Moran said: "The law is crystal clear. The issue could not be simpler and it was wrong for the prosecution to bring this case to trial when they knew, or ought to have known, that this finding would be the inevitable result."
Mr MacEntee asked for costs to be awarded to his client, stating that the office of the DPP had been contacted in December 2002 and told of the problems with the warrant. Judge Moran refused Judge Curtin his costs.
Judge Curtin made no comment when he left the courthouse flanked by six gardaí. Supt Noel White, who was in charge of the investigation, also refused to comment.