DPP v Reddington

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeRyan P.
Judgment Date05 December 2014
Neutral Citation[2014] IECA 25
Date05 December 2014
CourtCourt of Appeal (Ireland)
Docket Number272PX/2013

[2014] IECA 25

THE COURT OF APPEAL

President

Birmingham J.

Sheehan J.

272PX/2013
DPP v Reddington
The People at the Suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Appellant
v.
Stephen Reddington
Respondent

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1967 S4(E)

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1967 S4(4)

MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT 1977 S26

R v INLAND REVENUE CMRS, EX PARTE ROSSMINSTER LTD 1980 AC 952 1980 2 WLR 1 1980 1 AER 80 1980 70 CAR 157

BYRNE v GREY & ORS 1988 IR 31 1988/4/949

DPP v TALLANT 2003 4 IR 343 2003/20/4591 (EX TEMPORE)

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1967 S4(E)(8B)

Warrants – Evidence – Grounds for suspicion – Applicant seeking to quash decision of trial court – Whether there was a reasonable ground for suspicion

Facts: The respondent, Mr Reddington, made an application under s. 4(e) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1967 to dismiss a charge against him. The trial judge to whom the application was made dismissed the charge in accordance with subsection (4) as it appeared to her that there was not a sufficient case to put the accused on trial for that charge. The trial judge determined and held that, viewed objectively, there was no evidence of a sufficient nature to allow the District Judge to be satisfied that the applicant Garda had a cause for reasonable suspicion and was not satisfied that the issuing of a warrant on the 21st of November, 2011 was in accordance with law. If the search of a premises was invalid as being not in accordance with a warrant or if the warrant was issued in circumstances that were not in accordance with law, then it invalidated the warrant and it invalidated the search. The matter was tried before the judge on the basis of an analysis of the information that was before the District Judge who issued the search warrant under s. 26 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977. The Circuit judge held that there was not a ground on which the District Judge could have satisfied himself as to the requisites under s. 26 in order to issue a warrant; the District Court forms were not complied with. The judge drew attention to the fact that nowhere in the evidence of the Garda does he state that he had reasonable ground or grounds for his suspicion. The judge stated that the Garda said that he carried out surveillance on the premises and she said, while noting it was frequented by a number of known drug users, there was nothing to confirm a link with drug users themselves and drugs being found on the premises. The DPP appealed against the decision to the Court of Appeal.

Held by Ryan P that, having considered DPP v Tallant [2003] 4 IR 343, it is not sufficient that the Garda looking for the warrant is satisfied that there is reasonable ground for suspecting; the judge of the District Court must be satisfied on the basis of information on oath that there is reasonable ground for suspecting. The Court was satisfied that there was ample evidence on which the District Judge could issue a warrant; the Garda first said he had information and then he said that he carried out surveillance and noted that it was frequented by a number of drug users. Ryan P held that the error into which the judge fell was to think that because there was a conceivable, hypothetical possibility of an innocent explanation that that was sufficient; the fact that it might have been possible, although there is no suggestion anywhere that there was any question of a drug clinic or anything of that kind, to conceive of a situation that might indicate an innocent explanation is not an answer to the existence of suspicion. Ryan P held that it was not a ground of objection that the quality of the confidential information was not accounted for in the statements. The Court was satisfied that the issuing judge, on the basis of the information as contained in the documentary evidence, erred in dismissing the case. The Court was satisfied that there was a basis, and a rational basis, for issuing the warrant given the information as contained in the documents. The Court emphasised that there was no question of any inhibition on any inquiry or issue as to the warrant being raised at the trial of the case.

Ryan P held that the Court will make an order under s. 4(e)(8b) to quash the decision of the trial court, so that the trial may proceed as if the charge had never been dismissed.

Appeal granted.

1

1. Under s. 4(e) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1967, an accused person facing trial may apply to the trial court to dismiss one or more the charges. Under subsection (4) if it appears to the trial judge that there is not a sufficient case to put the accused on trial for any charge to which the application relates, the Court shall dismiss the charge. That is what happened in this case; the learned trial judge to whom the application was made dismissed a charge for reasons which I will deal with in a moment. There is a power to appeal that and that is the case that comes before this Court.

2

2. The case turns on this point. The trial judge determined and held that, viewed objectively, there was not evidence of a sufficient nature to allow the District Judge to be satisfied that the applicant garda had a cause for reasonable suspicion would be found at the relevant address. Therefore, she said: "I am not satisfied that the issuing of the warrant on the 21 st of November, 2011 was in accordance with law."

3

3. The implications of this are as follows. There was search of a premises. If the search was invalid as being not in accordance with a warrant or if the warrant was issued in circumstances that were not in accordance with law, then it invalidated the warrant and it invalidated the search. The prosecution conceded that that was the essential basis of the case and therefore, if the judge was correct in her conclusion, then that was the end of the case.

4

4. The matter was tried before the judge on the basis of an analysis of the information that was before the District Judge who issued the search warrant. The search warrant was issued under s. 26 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977. It says, so far as material, "if a Justice of the District Court is satisfied by information on oath of a member of the Garda Síochána that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that a person is in possession in contravention of this Act on any premises of a controlled drug, then the District Judge or a Peace Commissioner (but we are not concerned with that because in this case it was a District Judge) may issue a search warrant to search the premises", and that is what happened in this case.

5

5. The trial judge did not hear any evidence, and therefore this Court...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Grant v Governor of Cloverhill Prison
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 27 Noviembre 2015
    ...on the face of the record going to the jurisdiction under which it is issued. 27 Mr. Kelly relied on The People (D.P.P.) v. Reddington [2014] IECA 25, para. 10, to the effect that failure to comply with the forms set out in the Rules is not fatal to validity of an instrument. However what i......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT