Dunne v Director of Public Prosecutions

Last updated

Dunne v Director of Public Prosecutions
Coat of arms of Ireland.svg
Court Supreme Court of Ireland
Decided25 April 2002
Citation(s)[2002] IESC 27
Case history
Appealed fromJudgment of Geoghegan J (High Court) 29 July 1999
Appealed toSupreme Court
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting McGuinness J, Hardiman J, Fennelly J
Case opinions
Decision byMcGuinness and Hardiman JJ
DissentFennelly J
Keywords
Evidence, Risk of unfair trial, Duty of An

Garda Síochána, Prohibition, Delay in seeking

evidence

Dunne v Director of Public Prosecutions, [2002] 2 IR 305; [2002] IESC 27; [2002] 2 ILRM 241, is a reported Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that fair procedure imposes a duty on the prosecution to seek out and preserve all evidence that has a bearing or a potential bearing on the issue of guilt or innocence. [1] [2] [3]

Contents

Background

The case centered on the robbery of the Parkway Filling Station in Palmerstown on 18 January 1998. The applicant, Robert Dunne, was charged with the robbery. Brian Torley, the owner of the filling station stated that the filling station was covered by video camera surveillance. [4] Torley failed to recall whether the Gardaí requested or obtained video tapes of the robbery. The officer in charge of the investigation, Detective Garda Denis Kenny, admitted that no video tape of the events that occurred at the Parkway Filling Station was given to or obtained by any member of the Garda Síochana. [5]

The only evidence presented against the applicant was an alleged written statement.  It was argued that the failure to preserve the video recording for the applicant to view should be considered a breach of Garda obligation to preserve evidence potentially relevant to the issue of the guilt or innocence of the applicant. Arguing in favor of refusing the relief sought, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) stated Dunne had been guilty of delay in seeking judicial review.

Supreme Court Decision

The Supreme Court granted the appeal and subsequently made an order of prohibition. It was held that:

  1. An accused person had a constitutional right to a fair trial
  2. The applicant had not delayed in seeking the videos
  3. It was the duty of the Gardaí to seek out and preserve all evidence having a bearing or potential bearing on the issue of guilt or innocence

In his judgment, Hardiman J referred to his prior ruling in Braddish v DPP [6] where he initially stated:

"It is the duty of the Gardai, arising from their unique investigative role, to seek out and preserve all evidence having a bearing or potential bearing on the issue of guilt or innocence." [7]

As there was no evidence that the Gardaí ever possessed the video tapes alleging to show to accused committing the robbery in question, there could not be a question of a failure to preserve that evidence. The most important aspect to consider was whether the Gardaí had failed in their duty to "seek out" evidence which had "a bearing or potential bearing on the issue of guilt or innocence."

Endorsing the use of new technology in efforts to prevent crime, Hardiman J. noted that science and technology can provide more certainty in important matters that should not be merely judged by humans. He pointed towards the repeated use of new technology in furthering the prevention of crime for the greater good, even when the processes involved can be seen to be somewhat intrusive to innocent people. [8]

Concurrences

In his concurrence, McGuinness J stated that:

"Where the court was asked to prohibit a trial on the grounds that there was an alleged failure to seek out evidence, it would have to be shown that any such evidence would be clearly relevant, that there was at least a strong probability that the evidence was available and that it would in reality have a bearing on the guilt or innocence of the accused person." [9]

Dissents

Fennelly J, dissenting in part, noted his concerns on imposing such a duty on Gardaí in relation to seeking out evidence. It represents a "very significant new step in the law" [10] and that there is a danger that "there will develop a tendency to shift the focus of criminal prosecution on to the adequacy of the police investigation rather than the guilt or innocence of the accused." [11]

Referring to the judgment of Hardiman J in Braddish v DPP [12] it was reiterated that such a duty:

"Cannot be interpreted as requiring the Gardaí to engage in a disproportionate commitment of manpower or resources in an exhaustive search for every conceivable kind of evidence. The duty must be interpreted realistically on the facts of each case." [13]

Subsequent Developments

The ruling in this case was later affirmed in the 2003 Supreme Court case of Bowes v DPP. [14] Its judgments were also followed in O'Brien v DPP [15] and DPP v Browne. [16]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Garda Síochána</span> Police service of Ireland

An Garda Síochána, more commonly referred to as the Gardaí or "the Guards", is the national police service of Ireland. The service is headed by the Garda Commissioner who is appointed by the Irish Government. Its headquarters are in Dublin's Phoenix Park.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Adrian Hardiman</span>

Adrian Hardiman was an Irish judge who served as a Judge of the Supreme Court from 2000 to 2016.

Colm Murphy is an Irish republican who was the first person to be convicted in connection with the Omagh bombing, but whose conviction was overturned on appeal. While awaiting a retrial on criminal charges, Murphy was found liable for the bombing in a civil trial, along with Michael McKevitt, Liam Campbell and Seamus Daly. He was subsequently cleared of criminal charges in February 2010.

The Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission (GSOC) is an independent statutory body in Ireland charged with overseeing the Garda Síochána, the national police force. It is a three-member body established under the Garda Síochána Act, 2005 to deal with complaints from members of the public about the conduct of Gardaí.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Grangegorman killings</span> Series of murders

The Grangegorman killings were the homicide on 6 March 1997 of Sylvia Shields and Mary Callinan, patients at St. Brendan's Psychiatric Hospital in Grangegorman, Dublin, Ireland. After giving a false confession, Dean Lyons was charged with the murders and placed on remand. In his statement to the Garda Síochána (police), Lyons gave details that would only be known to the murderer or to the investigators. After Lyons was charged, Mark Nash confessed to the killings, but later retracted his confession. In April 2015, Nash's trial for the murder of Shields and Callinan began after an unsuccessful attempt to prevent the trial from going forward.

Father Niall Molloy was a Catholic priest who was killed in mysterious circumstances in Kilcoursey House in Clara, County Offaly, the home of Richard and Therese Flynn. When the Garda Síochána arrived, they found that there were signs of violence in Flynn's bedroom and that there was a large bloodstain on the carpet. The priest died the day after the wedding of the Flynns' daughter Maureen. Richard Flynn was charged with manslaughter and with actual bodily harm, but Judge Frank Roe at his trial, a family friend, directed the jury to give a not guilty verdict. In 2011, a medical examination of brain tissue kept after the original post-mortem revealed that there was a high probability that the priest was alive up to six hours after the initial attack and therefore might have lived if medical help had been summoned. Molloy was parish priest of Castlecoote, County Roscommon at the time of his death.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Murder of Adrian Donohoe</span>

Adrian Donohoe was an Irish detective in the Garda Síochána based at Dundalk Garda Station in County Louth, who was fatally shot in Bellurgan on 25 January 2013 during a robbery by an armed gang of five people on a credit union. He was the first garda officer to be murdered in the line of duty since 1996, and was afforded a full state funeral.

<i>Adam v The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Adam v The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 38 is a reported decision of the Irish Supreme Court, in which the Court, in affirming High Court orders to strike out two judicial review proceedings as frivolous, held that, to challenge the decision of a public authority, one must attempt to rely on proved individual circumstances.

<i>Callan v Ireland & The Attorney General</i> Supreme Court of Ireland case

Callan v Ireland& The Attorney General,[2013] IESC 35; [2013] IR 267; [2013] ILRM 257, was an Irish Supreme Court case which ruled on the decision to commute the sentence of death imposed on Callan to penal servitude for 40 years without allowing for remission. Noel Callan had been sentenced to death in 1985 but had his sentence commuted to 40 years of penal servitude by the President of Ireland, Patrick Hillery. The High Court rejected Callan's appeal that he was eligible for remission. Callan then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that Callan was indeed serving imprisonment and so by law could request remission of his penalty.

<i>Blood v DPP</i> Irish Supreme Court case

In Blood v DPP [2005] IESC 8, the Irish Supreme Court confirmed that a right to an expeditious trial is implied in the right to a fair trial under Irish law. The decision of McGuinness J further suggested that "blameworthy prosecution delay was insufficient without some evidence of prejudice to the accused, whether in the form of a real risk of an unfair trial or stress and anxiety arising from the delay". The applicant in the case was successful in their appeal.

<i>Dunne v Donohoe</i> Irish supreme court case

Dunne v Donohoe [2002] IESC 35, [2002] 2 IR 533 was an Irish Supreme Court Case wherein the court held that a Garda Superintendent was a persona designata and that a guideline issued the Garda Commissioner that imposed fixed preconditions to applications for a firearm certificate would result in the superintendent acting Ultra Vires. By ruling that the guideline interfered with the status of a superintendent as a persona designata, the Court provided an important finding in establishing the limits of discretionary powers under the Irish constitution and the legal standing of guidelines issued under the auspices of a national body.

<i>DPP v McLoughlin</i> Irish Supreme Court case

DPP v  McLoughlin, [2009] IESC 65, was an Irish Supreme Court case, which confirmed that when objecting to the granting of bail where alleged witness intimidation is raised, the judge in the application should explicitly address the likelihood, extent, and impact of intimidation. This case specifically raised the issue of hearsay in considering potential witness intimidation and in the context of a bail decision. The decision of Denham J, goes on to state in regards to hearsay that: "The relevance and weight of such evidence is a matter to be determined by the trial judge and that a judge should be careful on the weight he or she places on such evidence". The case also had implications for bail applications because the Supreme Court found that a high case load for the High Court had implications on bail decisions.

<i>P.M. v District Judge Miriam Malone and the Director of Public Prosecutions</i> Irish Supreme Court case

P.M. v District Judge Miriam Malone and the Director of Public Prosecutions[2002] IESC 46 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the court barred the further prosecution of a man for the alleged sexual abuse of his sister due to the nature of the offences and on the grounds of the pre-charge delay in criminal prosecution. A "inordinate" delay of seven years before the man was charged, coupled with the nature of the offences being described as "a form of sexual experimentation between two children under the age of ten" led to the decision of the court.

<i>DPP v Peter Cullen</i> Irish Supreme Court case

DPP v Peter Cullen, [2014] IESC 7; [2014] 3 IR 30, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court addressed the routine practice of An Garda Síochána of placing handcuffs after an arrest for drink driving. The court ruled that an arrest will be thrown out if it is shown that it was unnecessary to place handcuffs on the accused. There are certain circumstances that must be considered. For instance, whether the accused has a tendency for violence whilst intoxicated. The ruling raised the possibility that an invalidation of the arrest will also have an effect on the admissibility of the evidence.

<i>Braddish v DPP</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Braddish v DPP[2001] 3 IR 127 was an Irish Supreme Court decision that established principles in relation to gathering of evidence. The Supreme Court ruled that "the Gardaí are under a duty to seek out and preserve all evidence bearing on the guilt and innocence of an accused." Daniel Braddish, the applicant, sought a prohibitory injunction against his approaching prosecution for robbery. Video evidence of the alleged crime had been in the possession of the Gardaí but was no longer available. The effort to have the prosecution overturned was refused in the High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court was satisfied that the Applicant was entitled to the relief sought and accordingly made an order to quash the prosecution.

<i>PM v Director of Public Prosecutions</i> Irish Supreme Court case

PM v Director of Public Prosecutions[2006] IESC 22; [2006] 2 ILRM 361; [2006] 3 IR 172 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the decision of the lower court that PM had satisfied the balancing test applicable in cases of delay in prosecution. This balancing test requires an accused to show that his/her rights that are protected by the right to a speedy trial were so interfered with as to entitle him the relief he seeks. This case determined that prosecutorial delay that deprives an accused of these rights is, in and of itself, one factor to consider in carrying out the balancing exercise.

<i>McFarlane v. Director of Public Prosecutions</i> Irish Supreme Court case

McFarlane v. Director of Public Prosecutions[2008] IESC 7; [2008] 2 I.R. 117 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the right to a fair trial under both Article 38.1 of the Constitution and Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights does not preclude prosecution in cases of prosecutorial delay unless the accused can demonstrate either that some specific prejudice resulted or that the delay was well outside the norm for the particular proceedings.

<i>D.C. v DPP</i> Irish Supreme Court case

D.C. v DPP[2005] 4 IR 281, [2006] ILRM 348; [2005] IESC 77 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court confirmed that the standard to be met for prohibiting a trial is "where there is a real or serious risk of an unfair trial".

<i>Brian Rattigan v DPP</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Brian Rattigan v DPP [2008] IESC 34; [2008] 4 IR 639 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a criminal trial would be prohibited where prosecutorial delay or adverse pre-trial publicity created a substantial risk of unfairness to the accused.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Shooting of Colm Horkan</span> Shooting in Castlerea, County Roscommon, Ireland on 17 June 2020

Garda Colm Horkan was a detective in the Garda Síochána, the national police service of Ireland, who was shot dead by a 43-year-old man in Castlerea, County Roscommon, Ireland on 17 June 2020, while on an anti-crime patrol.

References

  1. Holmes, Matthew. "Anti-Social Media? Social Media and Crime". Irish Criminal Law Journal. 29 (1): 2–9 via Westlaw IE.
  2. Morgan, David Gwynn. (2010). Administrative law in Ireland. Hogan, Gerard W., Daly, Paul, 1983- (4th ed.). Dublin: Round Hall. pp. 12–66. ISBN   9781858005720. OCLC   729893948.
  3. Forde, Michael (January 2013). Constitutional law of Ireland. Leonard, David, 1983- (Third ed.). Haywards Heath. p. 17.17. ISBN   9781847667380. OCLC   864384078.
  4. [2002] 2 IR 305 at 308.
  5. [2002] 2 IR 305 at 315.
  6. [2001] IESC 45, [2001] 3 IR 127.
  7. [2001] 3 IR 127 at 133.
  8. [2002] 2 IR 305 at 310.
  9. [2002] 2 IR 305 at 306.
  10. [2002] 2 IR 305 at 343.
  11. [2002] 2 IR 305 at 344.
  12. [2001] 3 IR 127.
  13. [2001] 3 IR 127 at 135.
  14. [2003] IESC 9, [2003] 2 IR 25.
  15. [2008] IESC 67.
  16. [2008] IEHC 391.