Dunne v Donohoe

Last updated

Dunne v Donohoe
Coat of arms of Ireland.svg
Coat of arms of Ireland
Court Supreme Court of Ireland
Decided1 May 2002
Citation(s)Dunne v Donohoe [2002] IESC 35, [2002] 2 IR 533
Case opinions
Directive 53/00 regarding possession and security arrangements of firearms, with Ireland, was quashed by Supreme Court as it did not comply with the role of Garda Superintendent as Persona Designata and would cause the Garda Superintendent to act ultra vires.
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingKeane CJ, Murphy J, McGuiness J
Keywords
Constitution of Ireland | Ultra Vires | Persona designata | Garda Siochana

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 (in this case, the use of a locked firearms cabinet) 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. [1] [2]

Contents

Background

The possession and use of firearms is regulated by a number of statutes, namely the Firearms Acts of 1925 [3] and 1964. [4] The 1925 Act prohibits the possession or use of firearms except where a certificate granted under the provisions of the Act by the Superintendent of the Garda Síochána of the district in which that person resides.

This case regards a directive entitled "Security Arrangements for Licensed Firearms" (Directive 53/00) issued by the second named respondent, an assistant commissioner of the Garda Siochana. This directive required certain security requirements to be in place before certificates were issued; in particular, when the firearm is not in use, it must be kept in a properly constructed firearms cabinet, for which the key must be separately stored.

Facts of the case

The applicants were involved in a voluntary organization involved in, inter alia, game shooting. The applicants challenged the legal validity of the requirements, as established in Directive 53/00, following the first respondent being refused a firearms certificate.

Lower courts

The applicants were granted leave by the High Court to institute proceedings by way of judicial review. O Caoimh J held that the applicants were entitled to orders of certiorari and therefore, quashing Directive 53/00 and the refusal to grant a firearm certification to the first applicant. [5]

The High Court granted the reliefs sought based on two grounds:

"1. The directive was void.. as it had the effect of fettering the discretion of a superintendent in the exercise of the relevant functions under the 1925 Act; 2. That a superintendent was no empowered to impose a fixed precondition requiring every applicant for a firearm certificate to keep the firearms in a locked firearms cabinet constructed in accordance with the requirements of the directive."

The respondents appealed the Supreme Court.

Appellant's arguments

The appellants submitted that the control of firearms was a policing matter and due to the fact that statute regulated such power, did not make their control any less. The appellants also argued that because a licensing function had been conferred on Garda Superintendents, as persona designata, that power could be exercised at absolute discretion. It was also submitted that the Firearms Acts had the intention of local level senior officers granting firearm certificates. Finally, it was submitted that; it was not logical that the Oireachtas would remove, from the Commissioner, any power to ensure minimum acceptable standards of public safety; such a structure would be inconsistent with the purpose of the police force.

Opinion of the Supreme Court

Ultimately, the court held that Directive 53/00 interfered with the persona designata status of the Garda Superintendent, which couldn't be inferred on another. Furthermore, it was held that the Superintendent, in imposing such a condition was acting ultra vires , as there was no requirement for secure storage in the legislation.

Keane CJ, in his judgement, held that the High Court was correct in holding that Superintendent's power, as conferred on them by section 2 of the 1925 Act, [3] was, in fact, granted to the Superintendent as a persona designata, and therefore, such power could not be abdicated to anyone else. Furthermore, he may not be required to exercise it by another body or authority. [6]

This decision was supported by the cases of McLoughlin [7] and Rajan. [8]

Since the Supreme Court was satisfied that the High Court judge had not erred in law in the first ground, it was not necessary to investigate the second. Nevertheless, the court stated that such an act, as set out as the second ground, would constitute the Garda Superintendent, acting ultra vires of the provisions of the 1925 and 1964 Firearm Acts. [9]

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the High Court.

Subsequent developments

In McCarron v Superintendent Kearney, [2008] IEHC 195, Charleton J., commented that Dunne made the task of "reasonable administration" more difficult for the Garda Siochana. [10]

Related Research Articles

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

The 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.

Garda Síochána College is the education and training college of the Garda Síochána. It is located at McCan Barracks, Templemore, County Tipperary in Ireland. The college has been in Templemore since 1964.

<i>Ultra vires</i> Legal concept meaning powers are exceeded

Ultra vires is a Latin phrase used in law to describe an act which requires legal authority but is done without it. Its opposite, an act done under proper authority, is intra vires. Acts that are intra vires may equivalently be termed "valid", and those that are ultra vires termed "invalid".

The Morris Tribunal was a public inquiry to address allegations of the 1990s and early 2000s against the Garda Síochána, the national police force of Ireland. Subjects explored included suggestions of corrupt and dishonest policing in County Donegal but its recommendations and conclusions have more widespread consequences and importance.

<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.

The Barr Tribunal was a Public Inquiry in Ireland established by Resolutions passed by the Dáil Éireann and the Seanad Éireann on 17 and 18 April 2002, and by Instrument entitled Tribunals of Inquiry Evidence Acts 1921 Instrument 2002 made by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on 1 July 2002.

The Constitution Act 1931, popularly called the Public Safety Act 1931, was an Act of the Oireachtas of the Irish Free State amending the Constitution of the Irish Free State. It inserted Article 2A which empowered the Executive Council to declare a state of emergency during which most provisions of the constitution could be suspended and extra security measures taken. These measures included the uses of the Constitution Tribunal, a military tribunal, to try civilians for political offences, granting extra powers of search and arrest to the Garda Síochána (police), and the prohibition of organisations deemed a threat to the state's security.

<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.

This article is about the firearms policy in the Republic of Ireland. Irish law allows firearm possession on may-issue basis. With approximately seven civilian firearms per 100 people, Ireland is the 107th most armed country in the world.

Collymore v Attorney General [1969] UKPC 11 is a case of the Privy Council relevant for UK labour law, concerning the right to strike.

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

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.

<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>De Roiste v Minister for Defence</i> Irish Supreme Court case

De Róiste v Minister for Defence, [2001] 1 IR190, [2001] IESC 4; [2001] 2 ILRM 241, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the extended delay in bringing forward an action was grounds for dismissal of charges.

<i>OConnell & anor v The Turf Club</i> Irish Supreme Court case

O'Connell & anor v The Turf Club, [2015] IESC 57, [2017] 2 IR 43 is an Irish Supreme Court case which explored the scope of judicial review in Ireland. It addressed whether the decisions of a sport's organizing body should be amenable to judicial review. In deciding that it was, this decision became a useful reminder that it is not only bodies created by statute, which are generally considered to be subject to public law, that are amenable to Judicial Review by the Courts.

<i>Grace and anor v An Bórd Pleanála & ors</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Grace and anor v An Bórd Pleanála & ors[2017] IESC 10 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the criteria for ''standing'' in relation to judicial review of environmental concerns.

<i>SIAC Construction Ltd v The County Council of the County of Mayo</i> Irish Supreme Court case

SIAC Construction Ltd v The County Council of the County of Mayo [2002] IESC 39, [2002] 3 IR 148 was a case in which the Supreme Court of Ireland ruled that, in exercising its margin of discretion in the area of public procurement, a tender awarding authority is required to respect the general principles of equality, transparency and objectivity.

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

Z. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform[2002] IESC 14, [2002]; 2 ILRM 215 is an Irish Supreme Court case where the Court ruled that the absence of an oral hearing need not infringe the right of an applicant for refugee status to natural and constitutional justice.

<i>Dunne v Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Dunne v Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, [2007] IESC 60; [2008] 2 IR 775, is an Irish Supreme Court case concerning costs in public interest challenges. The Court allowed an appeal against the order for costs made in the High Court and also granted costs against the appellant for the unsuccessful appeal to the Supreme Court.

<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".

References

  1. ↑ Morgan, David Gwynn. (2010). Administrative law in Ireland. Hogan, Gerard W., Daly, Paul, 1983- (4th ed.). Dublin: Round Hall. pp. 11–161, 11–162, 11–163. ISBN   9781858005720. OCLC   729893948.
  2. ↑ Donson, Fiona J. L. (2015). Law and public administration in Ireland. O'Donovan, Darren. Dublin. pp. 7–27. ISBN   9781905536702. OCLC   890180632.
  3. 1 2 "Firearms Act 1925". Irish Statute Book.
  4. ↑ "Firearms Act 1964". Irish Statute Book.
  5. ↑ "Dunne v Donohoe [High Court]". Bailii.org.
  6. ↑ Dignam, Conor (31 January 2012). "Recent Developments in Judicial Review" (PDF). lawlibrary.ie.
  7. ↑ McLoughlin v Minister for Social Welfare [1955] IR 1
  8. ↑ State (Rajan) v The Minister for Industry and Commerce and Others [1988] ILRM 231
  9. ↑ "Dunne v Donohoe". Bailii.org.
  10. ↑ Morgan, David Gwynn. (2010). Administrative law in Ireland. Hogan, Gerard W., Daly, Paul, 1983- (4th ed.). Dublin: Round Hall. pp. 15–213. ISBN   9781858005720. OCLC   729893948.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.