McNulty v DPP

McNulty v DPP [2009] IESC 12
McNulty v DPP [2009] IESC 12
	Coat of arms of Ireland
Court	Supreme Court of Ireland
Full case name	Fergal McNulty v The Director of Public Prosecutions and His Honour Judge Michael White
Decided	15 May 2009
Citation(s)	[2009] IESC 12; [2009] 3 IR 572
Transcript(s)	https://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2009/S12.html
Case history
Prior action(s)	McNulty v DPP [2006] IEHC 74
Appealed from	High Court
Appealed to	Supreme Court
Court membership
Judges sitting	Hardiman J, Geoghegan J., Fennelly J.
Case opinions
	The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts and decided that the question of Judicial Review was not to be dealt with by the Supreme Court.
Decision by	Hardiman J.

Last updated May 01, 2024

McNulty v DPP[2009] IESC 12; [2009] 3 IR 572^[1] is an Irish Supreme Court case where the appellant had been previously charged with possession of controlled drugs with an intent to supply contrary to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977; the case was heard in the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court before Judge Michael White, where the jury were unable to reach a verdict and accordingly disagreed. The appellant claimed that the respondent had unfairly taken advantage of the jury's disagreement after what he claims was an incorrect decision by White J in allowing the admittance of additional evidence to make up for the "defects in proof at the first trial."^[1]

The appellant claimed that this constituted an abuse of process because 1) if the judge had correctly decided the legal issues he would have been acquitted and 2) if he had been convicted, the conviction “would have been quashed with no retrial” and thus it was "inequitable that he is now in a worse position" because the jury disagreed instead of convicting him. Thus, the appellant sought an injunction to restrain the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) from pursuing the charges made against him.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and decided that, where the trial judge is "capable of making all of the appropriate determinations of law and fact",^[1] judicial review was generally not a proper form of relief when it concerns the High Court's decision as to the admissibility of evidence before the comencement of a criminal trial.

Background

Mr McNulty was originally charged with the possession of a controlled drug. However, the more prominent charge was that for the possession of MDMA with the intent to sell or supply to another person. As a result of another offence alleged against McNulty, which he was acquitted for, the Gardaí made certain observations on the apartment of McNulty, as a result of this they applied for a search warrant for the apartment.

There was a challenge raised on McNulty's behalf in relation on the legality of the search warrant granted by the District Court. This challenge resulted in a voir dire, which is similar to a small pre-trial conducted with only the members of counsel and the judge. At the end of this process the Judge ruled in favor of the admissibility of the search warrant. The jury were unable to reach a verdict and disagreed. Following this trial's conclusion the prosecution in the case served more evidence on McNulty. At the crux of McNulty's case was that the DPP had taken advantage of the jury's disagreement by serving additional evidence in order to rectify the issues with proof in the initial trial.^[1] McNulty claimed that there were two reasons which this case can be brought forward, firstly he is of the opinion that he would have been acquitted if the trial judge had decided the legal issues correctly.^[1] Secondly, he was of the opinion that if he was convicted, that the conviction would have been quashed and as a result of this it is inequitable that he is in a worse position because of the disagreement of the jury.^[1]

Holding of the Supreme Court

The decision of the Court was delivered by Justice Hardiman in relation to a case for judicial review against the High Court. The Court affirmed the High Court order to refuse the relief sought by McNulty, this judgement was supported by concurrence from Geoghegan J and Fennelly J.

This appeal was dismissed on the two grounds which were brought forward by McNulty. Hardiman J stated that most relevantly to the Court currently is that in order to issue a valid warrant the District Court would have to hear oral evidence from the applicant in the case and there was no obvious evidence this occurred. Also, it was said that the warrant did not establish that the District Court Judge had been satisfied of the information which it required he be. Rather that it appeared to him as a result of information on oath from a member of the Gardaí that there was reasonable grounds for suspecting evidence of the offence in McNulty's home.

McNulty had lodged for a stay on proceedings and not to allow the DPP to pursue prosecution against him he also sought judicial review in a declaration stating he was entitled to acquittal. The Supreme Court took a stance of deference in relation to this issue of the merits of the issue raised before the Circuit Court. McNulty's representation relied heavily on previous decisions such C.C. v Ireland & ors^[2] which showcased an allowance for the Court to decide cases upon their particular merits and make their own decision on these matters. However, Hardiman J was of the opinion that the facts in issue would be capable of being resolved by the Circuit Court judge and this would be the most appropriate action as the issues arising are from a pending Circuit Court case. The Supreme Court also drew inferences between the two cases, as in this case McNulty was seeking to quash on certiorari a decision of the Circuit Court Judge from 6 years previous. The fact of the matter is that the ruling of the lower court is entirely moot because it had no continuance of legal effect and had no binding nature.

The second relief sought was the prohibition or injunction to stop the upcoming trial and similarly to the above is based on the idea that the ruling of the lower Court was wrong in law. As a result of what has already been established because this point was rendered moot in relation to the first relief it has been understood to be identical in this case and therefore the relief is not to be granted.

This case also importantly investigated the point as to whether or not a member of An Garda Síochána seeking a warrant must appear before the District Court Judge. This was queried by McNulty under section 10 of the Criminal Justice Act.^[3] This was relevant to the case because the District Judge did not state he was fully satisfied by the evidence provided. This issue calls into question "the root of our legal culture and the protection of the constitutional rights of the citizen."^[1] The resolution of this issue is paramount to the case. However, this Court felt that they were not the correct authority to deal with this query.

This case addressed a substantial issue in the decision of a court on the granting of a warrant for searching premises, as it looked at how the decision to grant should be reached. This case highlighted whether or not there was necessity to have a member of An Garda Síochána seeking a warrant "present himself before the learned District Judge and answer any questions it occurs to the judge to put to him in order to satisfy himself." Whilst this Court did not answer the question, it did highlight the necessity for it to be addressed.

Hardiman J found that at the root of this case was the admissibility of certain evidence rather than substantive law which was at the root of the C.C. case along with procedural issues in regards to the admission of evidence submitted to the trial judge.^[2] Hardiman J stated there was no one single answer to this issue but articulated that it is something to be decided with the specific evidence in each case. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal.

Further Developments

In Sweeny v Ireland & Ors^[4] the plaintiff, Mr Michael Sweeney, successfully argued that section 9(1)(b) of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 was unconstitutional; this case was distinguished from of McNulty v DPP as Baker J rejected the State's claim that the case "had not been proved in evidence and that the relief sought was more properly a matter for the trial court".^[5]

Related Research Articles

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

The Virginia Circuit Courts are the state trial courts of general jurisdiction in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Circuit Courts have jurisdiction to hear civil and criminal cases. For civil cases, the courts have authority to try cases with an amount in controversy of more than $4,500 and have exclusive original jurisdiction over claims for more than $25,000. In criminal matters, the Circuit Courts are the trial courts for all felony charges and for misdemeanors originally charged there. The Circuit Courts also have appellate jurisdiction for any case from the Virginia General District Courts claiming more than $50, which are tried de novo in the Circuit Courts.

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.

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.

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.

Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform v Bailey[2012] IESC 16, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held they did not have the jurisdiction to order the surrender of a non-Irish citizen for the commission of a crime committed in Ireland. Ian Bailey was accused of murdering a French citizen in Ireland. The French judicial authorities requested the extradition of Bailey from Ireland to France so to question him about the crime. However, the issue in this case was that Bailey is not a French citizen, rather his nationality is British. This case dealt with an unprecedented question of law as usually the person requested by the issuing state is a national of that state. The significance of this case was that the Supreme Court dealt with a situation where Bailey was a British national yet the French authorities requested for his extradition. Nevertheless, the Court decided that Bailey could not be surrendered because the French had not actually charged him with a crime.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Comcast Int. Holdings v Minister for Public Enterprise & ors and Persona Digital Telephony Ltd v Minister for Public Enterprise & ors [2012] IESC 50 is an Irish Supreme Court case which originated from the controversial decision of Michael Lowry, then Minister for Public Enterprise, to grant the second state mobile phone license to ESAT Digiphone. It has been described as "an absolutely unique case without any precedent in the ninety year history of the state."

Director of Public Prosecutions v Pat Hegarty is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the court confirmed that officers/key employees of undertakings involved in anti-competitive practices in Ireland may be prosecuted and convicted for their involvement, regardless of whether the undertaking itself has been prosecuted.

Wansboro v DPP and anor, [2017] IESCDET 115 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that granting 'leapfrog' leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court from the High Court under Art. 34.5.4 of the Constitution of Ireland may be appropriate where the (intermediate) Court of Appeal has already clearly taken a view on the issues raised by the applicant.

MJELR v Rettinger[2010] IESC 45, [2010] 3 IR 783, was a case in which the Irish Supreme Court ruled that to resist the application of a European Arrest Warrant on the basis that it would result in treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the wanted individual must offer substantial grounds to believe that he or she would be exposed to a real risk of such treatment.

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".

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Murphy, [2010] IESC 17; [2010] 3 IR 77, is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court determined that inpatient treatment with a restriction order attached to it in a European Arrest Warrant came within the meaning of "detention order" in s.10(d) of the European Warrant Act 2003. This gave the definition of "detention order" a wide meaning. The case involved an appeal against extradition to the United Kingdom.

O'C(P) v DPP [2000] 3 IR 87[1]; (2000) IESC 58 is a reported Irish Supreme Court case decision where the court examined the issues of "delay" and the right to a fair trial. The Court stated that under Article 38.1 of the Constitution, provides that no one shall be tried for a crime "save in due course of law," and stated that anyone accused with an offence has a right to a trial that is performed with reasonable expedition. The complainant's delay in informing the authorities of the alleged sexual abuse was found to be justified by the Court given the circumstances of the alleged offence. The court found that the applicant's ability to defend himself had been substantially affected by the delay, creating a real possibility of an unfair trial. Finally, the Supreme Court dismissed the complainant's appeal and upheld the decision of the High Court.

Thomas Murphy v Ireland and Others[2014] IESC 19; [2014] 1 ILRM 457; [2014] 1 IR 198; was a Irish Supreme Court case where the Court held that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is not required to provide information justifying a decision to hold a trial in the Special Criminal Court, unless it can be shown the decision was made mala fides. This decision further specified that the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) neither specified the nature of a fair trial nor identified trial-by-jury as a right.

DPP v Cronin [2006] IESC 9; [2006] 4 IR 329; is an Irish Supreme Court case where an appeal under section 29 of the Courts of Justice Act 1924 was heard. The case dealt with a circumstance in which a new argument, not raised during the previous trial, was brought up during the appeal. The court rejected the appeal on the grounds that the trial judge had struck a balance between having due regard to the actual defense put forward and ensuring all relevant issues relating to the case were identified. The ruling also clarified that only points with a genuine substance can be taken into consideration.

Damache v DPP [2012] IESC 11; [2012] 13 ILRM 153; [2012] 2 IR 266 is an Irish Supreme Court case which considered whether section 29(1) of the Offences Against the State Act 1939 was unconstitutional. This statutory provision allowed a member of An Garda Siochana, who possessed a rank not below that of superintendent, to issue a search warrant to another Garda who possessed a rank not below that of sergeant. The Supreme Court held that any search warrant issued by a person who is associated with the investigation was invalid. In this case, such a person was a deemed to be a member of the Gardaí. Thus, section 29(1) was declared unconstitutional and any evidence taken from the search warrant was inadmissable.

References

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 McNulty -v- DPP [2009] IESC 12, 18 February 2009, retrieved 2024-02-20
1 2 "C.C. v Ireland & ors [2006] IESC 33 (23 May 2006)". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 2019-12-22.
↑ Book (eISB), electronic Irish Statute. "electronic Irish Statute Book (eISB)". www.irishstatutebook.ie. Retrieved 2019-12-22.
↑ Sweeny -v- Ireland & ors [2017] IEHC 702, 23 November 2017, retrieved 2024-02-20
↑ Gráinséir, Seosamh (24 November 2017). "'High Court: Offence of failing to disclose information is unconstitutional'". Irish Legal News. Retrieved 2024-02-20.

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.

[:2-1] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 McNulty -v- DPP [2009] IESC 12, 18 February 2009, retrieved 2024-02-20

[:3-2] 1 2 "C.C. v Ireland & ors [2006] IESC 33 (23 May 2006)". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 2019-12-22.

[3] Book (eISB), electronic Irish Statute. "electronic Irish Statute Book (eISB)". www.irishstatutebook.ie. Retrieved 2019-12-22.

[4] Sweeny -v- Ireland & ors [2017] IEHC 702, 23 November 2017, retrieved 2024-02-20

[5] Gráinséir, Seosamh (24 November 2017). "'High Court: Offence of failing to disclose information is unconstitutional'". Irish Legal News. Retrieved 2024-02-20.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]