Dpp (At Suit of Detective Garda Barry Walsh) -v- Cash [2007] IEHC 108 (28 March 2007)

Dpp (At Suit of Detective Garda Barry Walsh) -v- Cash [2007] IEHC 108 (28 March 2007)

The prosecution is not required to prove the lawful provenance of every piece of evidence or every administrative step leading to arrest. Reasonable suspicion for arrest may be based on evidence not admissible at trial. Judicial discretion applies to the exclusion of evidence obtained by illegal means, except where there is a deliberate and conscious violation of constitutional rights, in which case exclusion is mandatory unless excusing circumstances exist. Fingerprint evidence, being objective, is not subject to exclusion for lack of caution or voluntariness. The district judge was correct to admit the fingerprint evidence and find the accused had a case to answer.

Citation
[2007] IEHC 108
Parties
Prosecutor: Director of Public Prosecutions (at the suit of Detective Garda Barry Walsh); Accused: John Cash
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
28 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Stated Case / High Court Judgment on Case Stated
Outcome
Case stated answered in favour of prosecution; evidence admitted; accused has case to answer.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Exclusionary Rule, Fingerprint Evidence, Constitutional Rights, Burden of Proof, Lawful Arrest
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Law Admissibility of Evidence Exclusionary Rule Fingerprint Evidence Constitutional Rights Burden of Proof +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 33 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions (at the suit of Detective Garda Barry Walsh)

Prosecutor

John Cash

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Stated Case / High Court Judgment on Case Stated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence obtained during an investigation based on fingerprints retained by gardaí, whose lawful provenance cannot be established, can form the legitimate basis for arrest and subsequent detention under section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1984
  2. 2 Whether evidence obtained during and consequential upon such detention must be excluded if the basis for arrest was unlawful
  3. 3 Whether gardaí have power to take fingerprints from a person in section 4 detention other than pursuant to section 6 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1984, where written consent is given

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution is not required to prove the lawful provenance of every piece of evidence or every administrative step leading to arrest. Reasonable suspicion for arrest may be based on evidence not admissible at trial. Judicial discretion applies to the exclusion of evidence obtained by illegal means, except where there is a deliberate and conscious violation of constitutional rights, in which case exclusion is mandatory unless excusing circumstances exist. Fingerprint evidence, being objective, is not subject to exclusion for lack of caution or voluntariness. The district judge was correct to admit the fingerprint evidence and find the accused had a case to answer.

Court Disposition

Case stated answered in favour of prosecution; evidence admitted; accused has case to answer.

Orders

  • Fingerprint evidence admitted
  • District judge's determination affirmed