A Derry man yesterday won his appeal against his conviction for having information on an RUC superintendent which could be useful to an unlawful organisation.
The Court of Criminal Appeal held that, as Mr Gerald Anthony McFadden had objected to his wallet being searched by gardaí, the subsequent decision to search his wallet without informing him of the legal justification for that search was unlawful and any evidence obtained from that search was inadmissible. As the only evidence against Mr McFadden was a piece of paper found in his wallet, which contained details of the movements of an RUC superintendent, the conviction must be quashed, the court ruled.
Mr McFadden (33), Rathline Gardens, Creggan, was jailed for four years by the Special Criminal Court in July 2001. In its reserved judgment yesterday, the three-judge court quashed Mr McFadden's conviction and ordered that he be freed. Mr McFadden had been convicted of having information relating to Derry-based Supt Peter Sheridan, including information on his family and movements, that was likely to be useful to members of an unlawful organisation in the commission of a serious offence. The incident was claimed to have taken place on April 15th, 2001, at Glebe, Donegal town.
The trial court had heard Mr McFadden was stopped at a Garda checkpoint and arrested on suspicion of drunken driving. At Donegal Garda station, he was searched and a wallet was found which contained a tightly wrapped piece of paper. Details of Supt Sheridan's movements were written on the document. There were also details about his car and his wife's car.
Allowing Mr McFadden's appeal, the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Keane, said the sole ground of appeal was that the trial court was wrong to rule that the document found as a result of the search of Mr McFadden's wallet was admissible evidence.
The Chief Justice said Mr McFadden was searched initially with his consent. However, it was also clear he had never consented to any examination of his wallet's contents or to the gardaí's retention of the document found by them in the wallet. Indeed, he objected to the search of his wallet.
A garda could not engage in such a procedure without the consent of the person whose person, property or effects were being searched unless it was authorised by law.
It was clear from the evidence that at no stage was Mr McFadden told by the garda why he was being searched or why the contents of his wallet was being examined. Neither was he informed what power the garda was relying on to justify the search.
The garda's failure to give any explanation to Mr McFadden as to why his wallet was being searched, at a stage when it was clear Mr McFadden was objecting to his search, could not be regarded as a trivial or inconsequential departure from the regulations. A breach of the fundamental requirement of the law - that a garda who was carrying out a search of a person without their consent must informs that person of the legal justification for so interfering with their constitutional right - could not, in the court's view, be considered as of such little importance as to justify a departure from the regulation.
It could not be suggested such a search could lawfully be carried out without a person's consent except for a reason recognised by the law of which they were informed at the time.