Title:Cruise -v- Judge O'Donnell
SUPREME COURT
Judgments delivered on December 20th, 2007, by Mr Justice Fennelly and Mr Justice Hardiman; Chief Justice Murray, Ms Justice Denham and Mr Justice Geoghegan concurring
JUDGMENT
The question of the validity of a search warrant can be considered by the judge during pre-trial proceedings, prior to the full trial before a judge and jury on criminal charges.
BACKGROUND
The case was brought by Eamonn Cruise, who was charged with seven serious drug offences, all relating to possession of drugs at a premises in Clondalkin on June 20th, 2002.
Before the case came to trial, he issued a motion seeking a dismissal of the charges on the grounds that the book of evidence did not contain any admissible evidence, claiming that the drugs were not seized in accordance with a valid search warrant. He said that the warrant under which the drugs were seized did not refer to the premises searched by the Gardai.
The case was given a return date before Judge O'Donnell. He ruled that he did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate on the validity of the search warrant, which should be examined by the trial judge during the course of the trial proper.
Cruise sought a judicial review of this decision in the High Court, where Mr Justice Quirke upheld Judge O'Donnell's ruling. He then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Much of the legal argument centred on the interpretation of the Criminal Justice Act 1999, Section 9 of which amends Section 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1964. This abolished the system of preliminary examination in the District Court, allowing the accused to be sent forward to the trial court, in this case the Circuit Court, directly.
Michael O'Higgins, SC, counsel for Cruise, argued that this new provision allowed for a preliminary examination of the charges in the trial court, which could decide on the validity of search warrants and, if they were found wanting, dismiss any charges prior to the commencement of a trial before judge and jury.
He also argued that having this issue decided after the trial had started, as sought by counsel for the DPP, would mean that a person would face into a trial for an offence carrying a minimum 10-year sentence without having preliminary issues tried. An early guilty plea was a mitigating factor in sentencing, but this could not be availed of while preliminary issues were outstanding.
Counsel for the DPP, Paul Anthony McDermott, SC, said that questions of the admissibility of evidence were for the trial judge to decide in the context of the evidence he or she had heard, and as they arose in the evidence. The applicant was seeking to "interfere with the essential unity of a criminal trial".
If this application was successful, it could fundamentally affect the way criminal trials were conducted in Ireland, and issues like the legality of detention or the admissibility of confessions could also be raised before a trial proper could begin.
JUDGMENTS
Mr Justice Fennelly said that the question for the court was the same as it was formerly for the District Court: "Is there a sufficient case to put the accused on trial?" The issue being examined was quite a narrow one - was the premises actually searched that named in the warrant? This was the kind of issue that could be decided under the Act.
He said he was satisfied that Section 4E of the amended Act was not intended to provide "an independent free-standing procedure for the determination of preliminary issues". Section 4E of the Act would not apply where the documents showed other evidence against the accused.
However, he said this did not dispose of this case, where the Circuit Court judge had said he did not have jurisdiction to decide the issue. "I am satisfied that the first-named respondent erred in reaching the conclusion" and he should have been prepared to entertain arguments concerning the validity of the documents. He therefore allowed the appeal, and allowed the court to resume consideration of Cruise's application for dismissal of the charges.
Mr Justice Hardiman said that both sides relied on the fact that "there had long been calls for the provision of some mechanism, preliminary to trial, where evidential and legal issues could be determined".
He said that the 1999 Act abolished preliminary examination in the District Court, where it had previously been possible for a defendant to have the charges against him dismissed. The right to seek such dismissal had been transferred to the trial court. If there was a single point that could lead to this outcome, it was a great advantage to have it determined before the trial itself. There was no doubt but that the applicant was entitled to seek the dismissal of the charges against him in the Circuit Court.
Referring to the argument that only the judge presiding over the trial could order such dismissal, he said it was open to the Oireachtas to specify this, but it had chosen not to.
He countered the argument of the DPP that Cruise's application would interfere with the unity of the trial by stating it would not involve any adjournment, long or short. Instead, it would "facilitate the unitary disposition of a case by a jury by resolving in advance a question which would have to be determined otherwise in the absence of the jury, perhaps delaying for several days their participation in the case".
He said we lived in an era of case management, when efficiency was being sought in all trials. Disposing of evidential issues before the jury is sworn would assist and emphasise the unity and continuity of trials, and pre-trial motions existed in other common law jurisdictions. He upheld the appeal, and remitted the matter to the Circuit Court.
The full text of this judgment is on www.courts.ie
Solicitors: Michael Hanahoe, Dublin (for the applicant); Chief Prosecution Solicitor (for the DPP)
Law Matters is edited by Dr Carol Coulter.