Damache v DPP

Last updated
Damache v DPP and others
Coat of arms of Ireland.svg
Court Supreme Court of Ireland
Citation[2012] 13 ILRM 153; [2012] IESC 11; [2012] 2 IR 266
Transcript https://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2012/S11.html
Case history
Appealed from High Court
Appealed to Supreme Court
Court membership
Judges sittingDenham CJ, Murray J, Hardiman J, Fennelly J, O'Donnell J
Case opinions
The Supreme Court held that any search warrant issued by a person who is associated with the investigation was invalid.
Decision byDenham CJ
Keywords

Damache v DPP [2012] IESC 11; [2012] 13 ILRM 153; [2012] 2 IR 266 [1] is an Irish Supreme Court case which considered whether section 29(1) of the Offences Against the State Act 1939 was unconstitutional. This statutory provision allowed a member of An Garda Siochana, who possessed a rank not below that of superintendent, to issue a search warrant to another Garda who possessed a rank not below that of sergeant. [2] The Supreme Court held that any search warrant issued by a person who is associated with the investigation was invalid. In this case, such a person was a deemed to be a member of the Gardaí. Thus, section 29(1) was declared unconstitutional and any evidence taken from the search warrant was inadmissible. [3] [4] [5]

Contents

Background

An investigation was launched into an alleged conspiracy to murder concerning a Mr Lars Vilks, who was a Swedish cartoonist that had portrayed the Muslim prophet Muhammad with the body of a dog. This caused an uproar in the Muslim community and a conspiracy to murder Mr Vilks was made. It was suspected that Damache, along with other individuals, were involved in this conspiracy. In addition, it was suspected that he made a threatening phone call to a person in America on 9th January 2010. Damache while in custody admitted that he had made a phone call of a threatening nature on 9th January 2010. A search warrant was granted under section 29(1) of the Offences against the State Act 1939 to search Damache's home. This search warrant was executed.

Subsequently, Damache was charged with an offence of threat by telephone under section 13 Post Office (Amendment) Act 1951. This was different to what he was originally arrested for which was conspiracy to murder. Damache argued that section 29(1) was against the Constitution as it allowed a search warrant to be issued by a member of the Gardai who was not independent of the investigation. [1]

Damache sought judicial review, seeking:

  1. A declaration that section 29(1) is repugnant to the constitution; and
  2. A stay on any further steps being taken in the case against him.

The High Court refused his application, therefore, Damache decided to appeal this ruling to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal.

Submissions of the parties

Damache submitted that the person making the decision as to the granting of a search warrant, should be "independent, impartial and have no material interest". [2] He further argued that section 29(1) was contrary to the Constitution and that it fails to reflect the essential balance between the requirements of common good and protection of an individual's constitutional rights. [1]

The Director of Public Prosecutions, who were respondents to this appeal, submitted that this section was not in contrast to the Constitution and that it was necessary to prosecute people for offences against the state and against the justice system. It was further argued that any such diminution in rights was "proportionate and lawful." [1]

Holding of the Supreme Court

This case was appealed from the High Court. It was brought in advance of the trial. No evidence had been brought forward yet. However to settle this case, evidence was not required to be heard. The issue in this case was that Damache's house was searched on the basis of a warrant issued by a Garda Superintendent. Section 29(1) of the Offences against the State Act 1939 was amended by section 5 of the Criminal Law Act 1976. The amendment allows a Garda, who possessed a rank not below that of superintendent, to issue a warrant to another Garda, who possessed a rank not below that of sergeant. Furthermore, it was made clear by the courts that this was an administrative act but not an administration of justice and therefore, it did not have to be decided by a judge. [1] Typically, a District Court judge would make such a decision. This role should be exercised judicially so as to ensure the decision is impartial and fair. Members of the Garda Siochana is allowed to issue a warrant in situations which require to act immediately and should only be exercised if it is the only last resort. [1] These kind of warrants need to be executed within 24 hours whereas warrants under section 29 remain valid for about a week. Damache contested that the decision to issue a warrant should be made by someone who is unconnected to the investigation and by someone does not receive any benefits from issuing a warrant so that the decision made is fair. The Supreme Court cited a case called The People (DPP) v Birney, where the judge construed the meaning of section 29. [6] This Court agreed with the literal interpretation adopted by the judge in Birney to conclude that section 29 does not prohibit a member of the Garda Siochana to issue a warrant. [1] It was also said that the said provision does not mean the superintendent cannot be a part of the investigation. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court held that it was a well established principle that the individual granting the search warrant should be independent and impartial. [2] Damache argued that section 29(1) fails to account for a balance between common good and his personal rights, thus making the subsection contrary to the Constitution. Respondents submitted that section 29(1) was formed to protect the state from individuals who commit crimes against the state. It is important to note that as this case involves a constitutional challenge, the double construction rule needs to be applied. This rule obliges a court to prefer a view that the section under scrutiny is constitutional rather than unconstitutional if the provision allows for two interpretations.

When issuing a warrant there are two prerequisite conditions which must be satisfied. Firstly, the person issuing the warrant must be independent to the investigation. Secondly, such a person must ensure that there are reasonable grounds for the issuance of a search warrant. Section 29(1) permits the issuance of a search warrant of any place which the Garda thinks will have evidence relating to the investigation. In this case, the Garda believed that a firearm would be found at Damache's house. However, a home is protected under the constitution. Article 40.5 of the constitution Archived 2022-07-10 at the Wayback Machine protects the house of every citizen and prohibits anyone to forcibly enter save in accordance with law. [1] Also, the search of the house took place in front of Damache and he was provided with a file of the case. Furthermore, he was given an opportunity to call a lawyer. The search consisted of the checking of the phone and television sets and the investigating officials did not search any furniture, look at any documents or seize anything. [1] The Court stated there should be a proportionate balance between the requirements of common good and the protection of individual's rights but there may be an exception if there is a situation of urgency.

The Supreme Court held that the Garda in this case was not independent of the investigation and thus the issuance of a warrant was not made in a manner as required by the law. In addition, the search carried out was at Damache's house which was protected under the constitution. So, the Court decided to allow the appeal as section 29(1) of the Offences against the State Act 1939 is against the constitution which aims to protect the dwellings of all citizens. [1]

See also

Offences against the State Acts 1939–1998

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Garda Síochána</span> Police and security service of the Republic of Ireland

The Garda Síochána is the national police and security service of Ireland. It is more commonly referred to as the Gardaí or "the Guards". The service is headed by the Garda Commissioner, who is appointed by the Irish Government. Its headquarters are in Dublin's Phoenix Park.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prosecutor</span> Legal profession

A prosecutor is a legal representative of the prosecution in states with either the adversarial system, which is adopted in common law, or inquisitorial system, which is adopted in civil law. The prosecution is the legal party responsible for presenting the case in a criminal trial against the defendant, an individual accused of breaking the law. Typically, the prosecutor represents the state or the government in the case brought against the accused person.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Special Criminal Court</span> Irish specialist court

The Special Criminal Court is a juryless criminal court in Ireland which tries terrorism and serious organised crime cases.

In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime at some time in the future. Criminal law in some countries or for some conspiracies may require that at least one overt act be undertaken in furtherance of that agreement, to constitute an offense. There is no limit to the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, the plan itself is the crime, so there is no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect. For the purposes of concurrence, the actus reus is a continuing one and parties may join the plot later and incur joint liability and conspiracy can be charged where the co-conspirators have been acquitted or cannot be traced. Finally, repentance by one or more parties does not affect liability but may reduce their sentence.

The Morris Tribunal was a public inquiry to address allegations of the 1990s and early 2000s against the Garda Síochána, the national police force of Ireland. Subjects explored included suggestions of corrupt and dishonest policing in County Donegal but its recommendations and conclusions have more widespread consequences and importance.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Adrian Hardiman</span>

Adrian Hardiman was an Irish judge who served as a Judge of the Supreme Court from 2000 to 2016.

The Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission (GSOC) is an independent statutory body in Ireland charged with overseeing the Garda Síochána, the national police force. It is a three-member body established under the Garda Síochána Act 2005 to deal with complaints from members of the public about the conduct of Gardaí.

Sophie Toscan du Plantier, a 39-year-old French woman, was killed outside her holiday home near Toormore, Goleen, County Cork, Ireland, on the night of 23 December 1996.

Criminal procedure in South Africa refers to the adjudication process of that country's criminal law. It forms part of procedural or adjectival law, and describes the means by which its substantive counterpart, South African criminal law, is applied. It has its basis mainly in English law.

The Garda National Economic Crime Bureau – informally known as the Fraud Squad – is a specialised division of Ireland's national police force, the Garda Síochána, that investigates economic crimes. The Bureau operates as part of the Garda Special Crime Operations branch and works alongside other sections of the force, as well as the external Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement (ODCE), an agency tasked with investigating white-collar crime. The Economic Crime Bureau is responsible for the investigation of serious financial fraud and corruption. It was established in April 1996 and is based at Harcourt Square, Dublin 2. The GNECB is headed by an officer of Detective Chief Superintendent rank, who reports to the Assistant Commissioner of Special Crime Operations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Witness Security Programme (Ireland)</span> Unit of the Irish national police

The Witness Security Programme in Ireland is administered by the Attorney General of Ireland, and is operated by the Garda Síochána, the national police force. Witness protection in Ireland is used in cases of serious, organised crime and terrorism. The programme is under the operational control of the elite Garda Special Detective Unit (SDU), attached to the Garda Crime & Security Branch (CSB).

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is the principal public agency for conducting criminal prosecutions in the Republic of Ireland. It is led by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

<i>Dunne v Director of Public Prosecutions</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Dunne v Director of Public Prosecutions, [2002] 2 IR 305; [2002] IESC 27; [2002] 2 ILRM 241, is a reported Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that fair procedure imposes a duty on the prosecution to seek out and preserve all evidence that has a bearing or a potential bearing on the issue of guilt or innocence.

<i>Dunne v Donohoe</i> Irish supreme court case

Dunne v Donohoe [2002] IESC 35, [2002] 2 IR 533 was an Irish Supreme Court Case wherein the court held that a Garda Superintendent was a persona designata and that a guideline issued the Garda Commissioner that imposed fixed preconditions to applications for a firearm certificate would result in the superintendent acting Ultra Vires. By ruling that the guideline interfered with the status of a superintendent as a persona designata, the Court provided an important finding in establishing the limits of discretionary powers under the Irish constitution and the legal standing of guidelines issued under the auspices of a national body.

<i>Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform v Bailey</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform v Bailey[2012] IESC 16, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held they did not have the jurisdiction to order the surrender of a non-Irish citizen for the commission of a crime committed in Ireland. Ian Bailey was accused of murdering a French citizen in Ireland. The French judicial authorities requested the extradition of Bailey from Ireland to France so to question him about the crime. However, the issue in this case was that Bailey is not a French citizen, rather his nationality is British. This case dealt with an unprecedented question of law as usually the person requested by the issuing state is a national of that state. The significance of this case was that the Supreme Court dealt with a situation where Bailey was a British national yet the French authorities requested for his extradition. Nevertheless, the Court decided that Bailey could not be surrendered because the French had not actually charged him with a crime.

<i>P.M. v District Judge Miriam Malone and the Director of Public Prosecutions</i> Irish Supreme Court case

P.M. v District Judge Miriam Malone and the Director of Public Prosecutions[2002] IESC 46 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the court barred the further prosecution of a man for the alleged sexual abuse of his sister due to the nature of the offences and on the grounds of the pre-charge delay in criminal prosecution. A "inordinate" delay of seven years before the man was charged, coupled with the nature of the offences being described as "a form of sexual experimentation between two children under the age of ten" led to the decision of the court.

<i>DPP v Peter Cullen</i> Irish Supreme Court case

DPP v Peter Cullen, [2014] IESC 7; [2014] 3 IR 30, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court addressed the routine practice of An Garda Síochána of placing handcuffs after an arrest for drink driving. The court ruled that an arrest will be thrown out if it is shown that it was unnecessary to place handcuffs on the accused. There are certain circumstances that must be considered. For instance, whether the accused has a tendency for violence whilst intoxicated. The ruling raised the possibility that an invalidation of the arrest will also have an effect on the admissibility of the evidence.

<i>McFarlane v Director of Public Prosecutions</i> Irish Supreme Court case

McFarlane v Director of Public Prosecutions[2008] IESC 7; [2008] 2 I.R. 117 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the right to a fair trial under both Article 38.1 of the Constitution and Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights does not preclude prosecution in cases of prosecutorial delay unless the accused can demonstrate either that some specific prejudice resulted or that the delay was well outside the norm for the particular proceedings.

<i>Wansboro v DPP and anor</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Wansboro v DPP and anor, [2017] IESCDET 115 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that granting 'leapfrog' leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court from the High Court under Art. 34.5.4 of the Constitution of Ireland may be appropriate where the (intermediate) Court of Appeal has already clearly taken a view on the issues raised by the applicant.

<i>McNulty v DPP</i> Irish Supreme Court case

McNulty v DPP[2009] IESC 12; [2009] 3 IR 572 is an Irish Supreme Court case where the appellant had been previously charged with possession of controlled drugs with an intent to supply contrary to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977; the case was heard in the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court before Judge Michael White, where the jury were unable to reach a verdict and accordingly disagreed. The appellant claimed that the respondent had unfairly taken advantage of the jury's disagreement after what he claims was an incorrect decision by White J in allowing the admittance of additional evidence to make up for the "defects in proof at the first trial."

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 "Damache v DPP [2012] IESC 11 (23 February 2012)". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 2020-04-06.
  2. 1 2 3 "Supreme Court judgement". The Irish Times. Retrieved 2024-04-19.
  3. "Supreme Court alters rule for criminal trial evidence". The Irish Times. Retrieved 2024-04-19.
  4. "Inside Ireland's Supreme Court". The Irish Times. Retrieved 2024-04-19.
  5. "Untangling the threads of the Supreme Court's thinking". The Irish Times. Retrieved 2024-04-19.
  6. D.P.P.-v- Stephen Birney, Patrick Brennan, Thomas Gilson, Sean O'Donnell, John Troy [2006] IECCA 58, 12 May 2006, retrieved 2024-04-19