Director of Public Prosecutions v Maher (Approved) [2020] IEHC 231 (03 March 2020)

Director of Public Prosecutions v Maher (Approved) [2020] IEHC 231 (03 March 2020)

There was no legal authority for generating, retaining, or entering DNA profiles onto a database in the manner described prior to the Act of 2014, nor for including such profiles on the DNA database after the Act's commencement; admissibility of DNA evidence is a matter for the trial judge.

Citation
[2020] IEHC 231
Parties
Prosecutor: Director of Public Prosecutions (at the suit of Garda David Costigan); Defendant: John Maher
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
03 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Case Stated / Consultative Judgment on Admissibility of DNA Evidence
Outcome
Consultative case stated; first two questions answered 'no', latter two are for the trial judge to determine.
Legal Topics
DNA Evidence, Admissibility, Statutory Interpretation, Burglary
Criminal Law Evidence Law DNA Evidence Admissibility Statutory Interpretation Burglary

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions (at the suit of Garda David Costigan)

Prosecutor

John Maher

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Case Stated / Consultative Judgment on Admissibility of DNA Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Lawfulness of generating, retaining, and entering DNA profiles onto a database prior to the Criminal Justice (Forensic Evidence and DNA Database System) Act 2014
  2. 2 Lawfulness of including pre-Act DNA profiles on the DNA database after the Act's commencement
  3. 3 Admissibility of DNA evidence generated prior to the Act

Ratio Decidendi

There was no legal authority for generating, retaining, or entering DNA profiles onto a database in the manner described prior to the Act of 2014, nor for including such profiles on the DNA database after the Act's commencement; admissibility of DNA evidence is a matter for the trial judge.

Court Disposition

Consultative case stated; first two questions answered 'no', latter two are for the trial judge to determine.