Attempted rape finding has serious implications

A unanimous Supreme Court judgment quashing a man’s attempted rape conviction on grounds that suspects who request a lawyer cannot be questioned by gardaí until they get legal advice has significant implications for Garda investigations and may affect some prosecutions.

The court’s finding that the constitutional right to a fair trial includes a right to legal advice before questioning “can hardly come as a surprise,” Mr Justice Frank Clarke said as he handed down the court’s judgment.

The State must have known for some time such a ruling was very likely and, if it has not “organised its systems” to take account of that, those in charge of putting such provisions in place “must accept responsibility,” the judge added.

Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman said it seemed many arrests occur in the early morning, with the possible effect of a wait of several hours before a solicitor can arrive, and he queried whether some “dawn” arrests were really necessary.

He was also concerned it was “more than likely” that, within months, Irish law will provide that the time spent waiting for a solicitor “will be added to a person’s detention”.

The five judge court overturned the 2008 conviction of Raymond Gormley, aged 29, of Glenwood Park, Letterkenny, Co Donegal, who was jailed for six years for the attempted rape of a mother-of-two as she slept in her bedroom on April 24, 2005. The court ruled statements made by Mr Gormley to gardaí, after he requested a solicitor but before that solicitor arrived, were inadmissible as evidence.

In a separate but linked case, the court unanimously rejected arguments that forensic samples taken from convicted murderer Craig White, after White sought a solicitor and prior to that solicitor’s arrival, were inadmissible evidence.

White, of O’Devaney Gardens, Dublin, is serving a life sentence for the murder of Noel Roche at Clontarf Road, Dublin, in November 2005 and his conviction stands following the Supreme Court ruling.

The cases were both referred to the Supreme Court because they raised points of law of exceptional public importance.

The distinction between the cases was the evidence obtained in Mr Gormley’s case was as a result of statements made during interrogation whereas the evidence in Mr White’s case was “objective forensic evidence,” Mr Justice Clarke said.