Ryan judgment: The unlawful arrest of Desmond Ryan in September 2000 was at the root of the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal yesterday to quash his conviction for violent disorder arising from the incident outside Club Anabel in Dublin which led to the death of Brian Murphy. Mr Ryan walked free from the court after the court ruled there should be no retrial.
Because Mr Ryan's arrest was unlawful, statements and memoranda taken from him in Garda custody were also inadmissible, the court found. Because those documents would be inadmissible in any future trial and the court considered that such other evidence as existed would not be sufficient to sustain a conviction, it said it would not order a retrial.
A nine-month sentence was imposed on Mr Ryan following his trial in Dublin Circuit Criminal Court which ended in March 2004, but he never served any time in jail.
In his appeal, Mr Ryan had argued that his detention on September 26th, 2000, under Section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1984, which followed his arrest at his home earlier that morning, was unlawful. He also argued that memos of interviews with him which were recorded by gardaí during that period of unlawful detention were not admissible at his trial and ought to have been excluded by the trial judge.
Giving the judgment, Mr Justice McCracken noted that gardaí had applied on September 25th, 2000, for a warrant to search Mr Ryan's home for a pair of black shoes with an ornate buckle.
Such shoes had been des- cribed by witnesses as being worn by one of the persons in the row which led to Brian Murphy's death. The warrant was granted that day, and gardaí went to his home early the following day.
At his home, gardaí took possession of shoes. They also asked Mr Ryan for the clothing he was wearing on the night of the incident, and he provided that. Mr Ryan was arrested at 6.50 a.m. for the alleged murder of Mr Murphy and was taken to Harcourt Terrace Garda station.
At his trial, the prosecution and defence accepted that the search warrant was bad, and the trial judge ruled to that effect. The defence argued that the arrest and consequent detention were unlawful because there was no evidence that gardaí had gone to the Ryan home for the purpose of arrest. It argued that the statements made were consequently inadmissible.
However, the prosecution argued, and the trial judge accepted, that Mr Ryan's arrest and detention were lawful under Section 6.2 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1997 (which provides that gardaí may "for the purpose of arrest" enter a house, forcibly if necessary...) and, consequently, the statements and memoranda arising from that detention were admissible as evidence.
After hearing both sides, the trial judge said he was satisfied from Garda evidence that it was the gardaí's intention not just to execute the search warrant but also to effect Mr Ryan's arrest for reasons other than any evidence they might find as a result of the search. He ruled that the arrest and detention were therefore lawful and the statements and memoranda were admissible.
In his appeal, lawyers for Mr Ryan argued that the trial judge erred in those conclusions.
Mr Justice McCracken said the court was satisfied there was nothing in the garda evidence to the trial court to indicate an intention by gardaí to arrest Mr Ryan when they went to his home or to do anything other than execute the search warrant.
He said there appeared to be no evidence which could support the notion that when gardaí went to the Ryan home that morning they had a dual purpose, to search on foot of the search warrant and also to effect the arrest.
In this case, for the arrest to be lawful under Section 6, the least gardaí would be required to do was to have informed the Ryans they wished to gain entry for the purpose of search and arrest.
Given that finding, the court held both the arrest and detention were unlawful. It also ruled there were no "extraordinary excusing circumstances" which would have allowed the statements to have been admitted at the trial.
