Warrants used to search premises for countefeit clothes were valid

Application for an order of certiorari by way of Judicial Review quashing the decision of a District Court Judge made on 25th May, 2016, at the District Court sitting in Galway, to issue two search warrants obtained by the respondent in respect of the domestic dwelling of the first-named applicant (who is the sole director of the second-named applicant) and the business premises of the second-named applicant - warrants in question refer to alleged wrongdoing pursuant to the Trade Marks Act 1996 and were executed on 26th May, 2016 - upon execution of the warrants, the respondent (who is a member of An Garda Siochana holding the rank of sergeant) searched the two addresses named therein and seized property reasonably believed to be related to the alleged committed wrongdoing - the central argument submitted by counsel for the applicants is that the Learned Judge did not have jurisdiction to issue the impugned warrants because the wrongdoing which the applicants are suspected of committing is not an offence under Irish law, let alone an arrestable offence - it is submitted that “infringement of a registered Trade Mark” is a civil wrong established under s. 14 and that the Learned Judge did not have jurisdiction under s. 10(1) of the 1997 Act to issue a search warrant in respect of s. 14 of the Trade Marks Act 1996 - regarding the recital of s. 92 of the Trade Marks Act 1996 in the warrants, the applicants concede that an arrestable offence is contained therein - the applicants also emphasise that the relevant section of the warrants employ terms referable to s. 14, that the constituent terms of s. 92 are not present on the face of the warrants and that the phrasing of the two wrongs are not interchangeable - warrants refer to “infringement of a registered trademark" - this is an adequate description of the arrestable offence outlined in s. 92 for the warrant’s validity to be maintained - in designing this warrant, s. 14 phrasing was employed to act as a description for the wrongdoing suspected under s. 92 - warrants are valid - application for certiorari refused.