A letter from Judge Brian Curtin's solicitor to the Oireachtas joint committee in July 2004 suggested viruses had invaded his computer, the Supreme Court said.
The letter stated that evidence obtained against the judge was inadmissible as it was obtained in breach of his constitutional rights.
In 1999, Judge Curtin was "under severe stress and was abusing alcohol", the letter stated. In such condition, he sought to access adult pornography, but at no time did he knowingly seek to access child pornography, it added.
It was also stated in the letter that computers were vulnerable to viruses wishing to deposit unwanted material. It said there was reason to believe "Trojan horses" viruses had been detected on Judge Curtin's computer by gardaí. It further said the presence of the viruses had been confirmed by a computer expert for Judge Curtin.
The Supreme Court ruled that following the introduction of the Child Trafficking and Pornography Amendment Act 2004, it was lawful for Judge Curtin to seek and obtain the computer from the Garda for the purposes of complying with a direction of the select committee to hand over that computer to it.
When the direction was made, the computer was within the judge's power or possession, the court held. Section 13 of the 2004 Act enabled the Oireachtas, through a select committee, to require a person who has within their possession or power a computer containing child pornography to produce such material. This was a legitimate means of ensuring such a committee could fulfil its constitutional functions, when those functions were legitimately concerned with such an issue.
In those circumstances, the 2004 Act was not, as Judge Curtin claimed, "a colourable device" to get around the fact that the Garda search of his home was unlawful. Rather it was "a clearly defined and lawful means" by which the Oireachtas could require an individual to produce their own property to it, the court found.
Judge Curtin was appointed a Circuit Court judge in November 2001. In May 2002, gardaí secured a warrant from the District Court which stated gardaí had given sworn information there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that evidence relating to an offence under the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act was to be found there.
A computer and other materials were seized.
However, because the search took place on May 27th, 2002, one day outside the seven-day time allowed by the warrant, the warrant had expired at the time of the search. As there was no other evidence against him, this led to Judge Curtin being acquitted by direction of another Circuit Court judge in April 2004 on a charge of knowingly having child pornography at his home on May 27th, 2002.
