Hyland v The Commissioner of Síochána

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Brian Murray
• Judgment Date: 06 November 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IESC 43
• Court: Supreme Court
• Docket Number: Supreme Court Appeal Number: S:AP:IE:2024/000017

Between/

Patrick Hyland

Applicant/Respondent

and

The Commissioner of an Garda Síochána

Respondent/Appellant

[2025] IESC 43

O'Donnell C.J.

Dunne J.

Woulfe J.

Hogan J.

Murray J.

Supreme Court Appeal Number: S:AP:IE:2024/000017

AN CHÚIRT UACHTARACH

THE SUPREME COURT

Judicial review – Garda disciplinary proceedings – Seized material – Appellant seeking to use material found as a result of the execution of search warrants in disciplinary investigations – Whether use of the information was permissible

Facts: The respondent, Garda Hyland, in judicial review proceedings, challenged the decision of the appellant, the Garda Commissioner (the Commissioner), to use and deploy material seized from his mobile telephone for the purposes of Garda disciplinary proceedings. The mobile telephone had itself originally been lawfully seized pursuant to a search warrant which had been granted by the District Court pursuant to s. 7 of the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1998. The High Court ([2022] IEHC 106) declared that the Commissioner was entitled to use the material found by the Gardaí as a result of the execution of the search warrants in any disciplinary investigations that may be brought into the conduct of the respondent. The Court of Appeal ([2023] IECA 278) held that the High Court was wrong to so order, and set aside that declaration. The Commissioner thereafter sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The reasons for the grant of leave were set out at [2024] IESCDET 42.

Held by Murray J that: (i) s. 9 of the Criminal Law Act 1976 did not authorise the Commissioner to retain the respondent’s phone for the purposes of Garda disciplinary proceedings; (ii) the respondent was not entitled to insist on the return of photographs or other material on the phone if those photographs or other material were unlawfully in his possession; (iii) if the Commissioner had made copies of or downloaded material from the phone after the point at which it was decided that there would be no prosecution, and when the respondent demanded the return of the phone, he was not entitled to do this; (iv) if the Commissioner made copies or downloads of material from the phone before that point, the question of whether he was entitled to physically deploy such material in such an investigation or inquiry depended on a number of legal issues, themselves dependent on matters of fact of which there was the absence of evidence; (v) as a consequence of the lawful execution of the warrant, the Commissioner had become aware that the respondent’s phone contained certain information; (vi) under Regulation 23 of the Garda Síochána (Discipline) Regulations 2007, the Commissioner was under a legal duty to appoint an investigating officer to investigate the alleged breach; (vii) the use of the information for those purposes was, having regard to the statutory duties in question, lawful and proportionate to the objective of enforcing Garda discipline; (viii) the finding in this case extends only to the situation in which information is lawfully obtained by the Commissioner in the course of the execution of a search warrant, and in which that information triggers a statutory duty imposed on the Commissioner to take particular action; and (ix) the respondent had not furnished sufficient information to enable the Court to engage meaningfully with his complaint that the actions of the Commissioner breached any provisions of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (the GDPR).

Murray J allowed the appeal in part, insofar as the Court of Appeal did not address what it termed the ‘derivative’ or ‘indirect’ use of information from the phone arising from the execution of the search warrant and which was permissible.

Appeal allowed in part.

JUDGMENT OF Mr. Justice Brian Murray delivered this 6th day of November 2025

The issues

1 . This appeal raises questions around the limits of what the police can do with information they obtain as a result of the execution of a search warrant. The material in issue was derived from a mobile phone owned by and seized from the applicant, who is a member of An Garda Síochána. The seizure was made on foot of a warrant granted for the purpose of investigating and prosecuting certain suspected offences. It is now most unlikely that there will ever be a criminal prosecution in which the phone will be required as evidence. However, the respondent (“ the Commissioner”) believes that information stored on the phone may disclose disciplinary offences by the applicant, and he wants to use that information for the purposes of a disciplinary investigation.

2 . In these proceedings the applicant sought a number of different reliefs arising from the detention of his property. One was an order for the return of his mobile phone. The High Court ( [2022] IEHC 106) agreed in principle that the applicant had a right to have the phone returned to him, subject to his being in a position to establish a right to possession of all the material contained on the phone. That finding was not appealed to this Court.

3 . As well as seeking the return of his phone, the applicant sought orders preventing the Commissioner from (as it was put in the Statement of Grounds) ‘ utilising any material obtained from the Applicant's phone other than in the course of a criminal investigation or prosecution’ and declaring that that evidence ‘ may not be deployed in internal disciplinary investigations save and except where the evidence so obtained discloses the commission of a crime.’ The High Court judge refused those Orders, declaring instead that the Commissioner was entitled to use the material found by the Gardaí as a result of the execution of the search warrants in any disciplinary investigations that may be brought into the conduct of the applicant. The Court of Appeal ( [2023] IECA 278) held that the High Court judge was wrong to so order, and set aside that declaration. The Commissioner thereafter sought leave to appeal to this Court. The reasons for the grant of leave are set out at [2024] IESCDET 42. The reasons for my decision to allow, in part, the Commissioner's appeal are summarised in the final section of this judgment.

The facts

4 . In April 2019 the applicant was attached to the Regional Traffic Unit of An Garda Síochána, based in Dublin Castle. He was, together with other Gardaí, a member of a WhatsApp group. That group was used to forward and exchange images and videos. On 28 April 2019 the applicant says that he received a WhatsApp message containing a video clip which he forwarded to the other members of the group. He says that he forwarded the message without viewing it. The group administrator subsequently sent a message advising all members to wipe the group from their phones. This was said to be due to a post made into the group earlier that day. The applicant says that after reading that message he realised that the post referred to by the group administrator might have been the one he had forwarded and that he thereupon viewed it for the first time. Upon doing so, he saw that the clip featured what appeared to be a fully clothed male teenager and another person in a position suggestive of a sexual interaction.

5 . On 14 May 2019, two search warrants were obtained pursuant to s. 7 of the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1998 (“ the 1998 Act”). These authorised the Gardaí to search the applicant, his place of work, his car and his family home. The suspicion grounding the warrants related to offences under ss. 3, 5 and 6 of the 1998 Act. The applicant was searched in his office and provided his personal phone and access code upon request. He alleges that he was not shown a copy of the warrant (an issue which while pleaded in his case, was not pursued in the High Court). The applicant's locker in the station was also searched and a bottle of methadone was found. Following the search of his locker he was directed to identify his car which was then searched, and an e-book reader was seized. Upon returning home on 14 May, the applicant learned that his dwelling had also been searched under one of the warrants and that a number of electronic devices had been seized.

6 . The applicant was suspended from duty on 17 May 2019, and the following month he was arrested and detained. He was questioned in relation to alleged possession of child pornography and alleged possession of methadone. He thereafter attended at Finglas Garda Station and provided a voluntary, cautioned statement. He denied any wrongdoing. He accepted that he had been naïve to have forwarded a video which he had not reviewed but denied that he had ever knowingly accessed or distributed child pornography. On 5 May 2020 the applicant was informed that the Director of Public Prosecutions (“ the DPP”) had determined that there should be no criminal prosecution arising from these events.

7 . Meanwhile, in September 2019, the applicant had been served with papers informing him that he was the subject of a disciplinary investigation pursuant to Regulation 24 of the Garda Síochána (Discipline) Regulations 2007 ( S.I. 214/2007) (“ the 2007 Regulations”). This was signed by Superintendent Costello and dated 30 August 2019. The breach of discipline alleged was that he had utilised a WhatsApp group to distribute images that included what appeared to be two minors engaged in a form of sexual activity.

8 . The applicant's suspension from duty had been lifted on 1 June 2019 and he was transferred to immigration duties in Dublin Port and attached to Store Street Garda Station. He appealed that transfer and was assigned to the Fines Office pending the determination of the disciplinary matter.

9 . By a second notice of investigation signed by Superintendent Creighton and dated 17 July 2020, the applicant was advised that he was the subject of a further disciplinary investigation pursuant to Regulation 24. This notice...