Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
The Supreme Court upheld an appeal brought by the head of a national policing body against the lower court's ruling that material seized from a police officer's mobile phone—originally obtained under warrant as part of a criminal investigation—could not lawfully be used in subsequent internal disciplinary proceedings after the criminal matter had ended and no prosecution resulted. The court found that the Commissioner, having formed the view that the applicant’s phone contained information that discloses a possible disciplinary offence by the applicant, was under a legal duty to appoint an investigating officer to investigate that alleged breach. The court reasoned that the fact the information in question was obtained by the Commissioner in the course of the execution of a search warrant does not displace that duty. Accordingly, he is entitled to use the knowledge so obtained to initiate the inquiry. In the circumstances, the use of the information for these purposes was, having regard to the statutory duties in question, lawful and proportionate to the objective of enforcing Garda discipline.
search warrant – mobile phone seizure – disciplinary proceedings – criminal investigation – privacy rights – constitutional rights – evidence retention – Criminal Law Act 1976 – Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1998 – judicial review – proportionality – Rules of the Superior Courts (RSC) – public interest test – freedom of conscience – legality of secondary use of evidence
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
The only fast reporting service for all Irish judgments over the past ten years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now