DPP -v- Cash [2010] IESC 1 (18 January 2010)

DPP -v- Cash [2010] IESC 1 (18 January 2010)

There is no legal requirement for the prosecution to prove the lawful provenance of material grounding suspicion for arrest if that material is not adduced as evidence at trial. The exclusionary rule from DPP v Kenny does not extend to facts forming the basis of suspicion for arrest. Fingerprints taken by consent during detention are admissible, and the existence of statutory procedures does not oust the common law right to take evidence by consent.

Citation
[2010] IESC 1
Parties
Respondent/prosecutor: Director of Public Prosecutions (at the suit of Detective Garda Barry Walsh); Appellant/defendant: John Cash
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
18 January 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (case Stated) / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court on Case Stated From District Court
Outcome
appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Lawfulness of Arrest, Fingerprint Evidence, Exclusionary Rule, Reasonable Suspicion, Statutory Interpretation
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Law Admissibility of Evidence Lawfulness of Arrest Fingerprint Evidence Exclusionary Rule Reasonable Suspicion +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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

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

Respondent/prosecutor

John Cash

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (case Stated) / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court on Case Stated From District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution must prove that material (fingerprints) grounding suspicion for arrest, but not produced in evidence at trial, was lawfully obtained
  2. 2 Whether evidence obtained during and consequential upon detention following such arrest must be excluded if the suspicion was based on unlawfully obtained material
  3. 3 Whether fingerprints taken by consent during detention are admissible

Ratio Decidendi

There is no legal requirement for the prosecution to prove the lawful provenance of material grounding suspicion for arrest if that material is not adduced as evidence at trial. The exclusionary rule from DPP v Kenny does not extend to facts forming the basis of suspicion for arrest. Fingerprints taken by consent during detention are admissible, and the existence of statutory procedures does not oust the common law right to take evidence by consent.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Order of the High Court affirmed