A man acquitted of robbing a bookies because of unconstitutionally obtained evidence could be retried following a Supreme Court ruling.
A divided court handed down today's decision that includes a new legal test for the admissibility of evidence in criminal trials.
In this case, S29 warrants were used to obtain entry to the defendant's home in Waterford in 2011.
S29 has since been struck down as unconstitutional so evidence from interviews following his arrest was deemed inadmissible at his Circuit Court trial.
The judge in the case had applied the exclusionary rule in accordance with established case law but the DPP subsequently sought a review of the man's acquittal.
Four of the seven Supreme Court judges has found that the DPP was entitled to appeal this acquittal while the dissenting judges raised concerns that the trial judge had not made any legal error.
