Thomas Murphy v Ireland and Others

Last updated
Thomas Murphy v Ireland and Others
Coat of arms of Ireland.svg
Coat of arms of Ireland
Court Supreme Court of Ireland
Full case nameThomas Murphy v Ireland, The Attorney General and The Director of Public Prosecutions
Decided11th March 2014
Citation(s)[2014] 1 ILRM 457; [2014] IESC 19; [2014] 1 IR 198
Transcript(s) https://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2014/S19.html
Court membership
Judges sittingDenham C.J., Murray J., Hardiman J., Fennelly J., O'Donnell Donal J.
Case opinions
Argued the DPP's failure to provide reasons for the issuing of a certificate under Section 42(6) of the Offences against the State Act 1939 were repugnant to the Constitution Of Ireland 1937 and section 42(6) was incompatible with the State's obligations under the ECHR. The court dismissed all the declarations of invalidity made by the plaintiff and the trial proceeded.
Decision byO'Donnell J.
Keywords
Constitution | Criminal Law | Challenge to constitutionality of provision | Administration of Justice | Equality | ECHR Compatibility | ECHR

Thomas Murphy v Ireland and Others[2014] IESC 19; [2014] 1 ILRM 457; [2014] 1 IR 198; [1] was an 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. [1] [2]

Contents

However, by identifying some circumstances in which the DPP would be required to justify its decision to hold a trial in the Special Criminal Court and in stating that Murphy's failure to challenge the DPP's decision in a timely manner vitiated his claim, the decision ultimately weakened the "special protection" traditionally enjoyed by the DPP regarding judicial review. [3]

Background

The plaintiff, Thomas Murphy, was charged in November 2007 with failure to fill out a tax return, which violatied the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997. The DPP issued a certificate that stated, under Section 42(6) of the Offences Against the State Act 1939, ordinary courts were inadequate to deal with the issue, secure the effective administration of justice and preservation of public peace. It also stated that the case should be forwarded to trial at the Special Criminal Court. As a result, on January 10, 2008, the District Court Judge made an order returning a date for trial to a sitting of the Special Criminal Court. The plaintiff brought judicial review proceeding challenging this return to trial, on the basis that the certain technical defects contained within the had been modified in proceedings in which the Mr Murphy had not been represented. The High Court subsequently made an order to quash the return to trial but the effect of this quashing was "formal and procedural: it was accepted that a proper return for trial could be made and the trial proceed." [1]

Instead of seeking a challenge of judicial review of the certificate, the plaintiff issued a plenary summons on the 5th of November 2008, seeking declarations that, by the court refusing to provide adequate reason for the issuing of the certificate, the court was in breach of his rights under the ECHR and the Constitution. The plaintiff also argued Section 42(6) of the 1939 Act failed to uphold his right to equality under Article 40.1 of the Constitution and therefore, the section was repugnant to the Constitution and was incompatible with the state's obligations under the European Convention of Human Rights. [4] [5]

Judgement of the Supreme Court

O'Donnell J delivered the judgement to a unanimous court. The court agreed that the plaintiff had been treated unfairly, however they rejected the plaintiff's argument that the courts were in violation of Article 40.1 on the basis that his co-accuseds had been tried in the ordinary courts:

"When there isn't a prima facie case of mala fides, the Director of Public Prosecutions can't be ask to explain his decision and the reasons for it, or what information he has based that decision on. (State (McCormack) v. Curran [1987] ILRM at page 237)" [1]

The court considered the compatibility of Section 42(6) of the 1939 Act with the ECHR, concluding that there was no incompatibility between the two stating that although the ECHR provides the right to a fair trial it does not detail how that trial should be provided: "Article 6 of the Convention guarantees a fair trial but the way the trail will be provided is not specified. This article does not guarantee in any instances, a right to a trial by jury." [1]

The court also rejected the plaintiff's argument that the decision of the DPP was effectively "unreviewable". The court stated that on review of case law over the last 15 years, the DPP's decision were overwhelmingly effectively reviewable both 'in theory and in fact': [1] "The court dismissed any idea the decision of the Director was unreviewable, instead it agrees that the Director would have been prepared to review the case and adjust the decision accordingly. The idea a jurisdiction is for good reason shouldnt be dismissed, although it is narrow it still is a reason."

In relation to the Plaintiff's claim that he should be provided with adequate reason for the issuing of the declaration, the court states that when the DPP makes a sole decision whether a case, which would ordinarily be tried before a jury, should be tried in the Special Criminal Court, fair procedures requires the DPP to provide reason to why ordinary courts are not sufficient to secure the administration of justice, however in this case since the offense was triable either way the District Court Judge could direct a trial without a requirement to provide reasons or a hearing:

When a decision is made in the District Court to direct trial on an offence that is triable either way, is subject to review by the Judge. If the District court judge refuses jurisdiction, this decision does not need any hearing or reasons. Similarly in Mallak, there is no question of the constitutional validity of the section. [1]

Conclusion

The court concluded that there was no implications for the constitutional validity for section 42(6), as it did not set out any procedure or preclude the giving of reasons. The court dismissed all the declarations of invalidity made by the plaintiff and the trial proceeded.

Subsequent developments

Attorney General v Marques [2015] IEHC 798, [2015] 12 JIC 1603 [6] and Attorney General v Damache [2015] IEHC 339 both relied on Murphy to argue for judicial review of a DPP decision. Shaw v Minister for Justice and Equality [2018] IEHC 288 [7] and Michael McKevitt v Minister for Justice [2015] IEHC 152, [2015] 1 IR 53 [8] also base arguments on Murphy.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prosecutor</span> Legal profession

A prosecutor is a legal representative of the prosecution in states with either the adversarial system, which is adopted in common law, or inquisitorial system, which is adopted in civil law. The prosecution is the legal party responsible for presenting the case in a criminal trial against the defendant, an individual accused of breaking the law. Typically, the prosecutor represents the state or the government in the case brought against the accused person.

<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>Gilroy v Flynn</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Gilroy v Flynn[2004] IESC 98; [2005] 1 ILRM 290 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the court made it clear that excessive delays in the delivery of a statement of claim were unacceptable and could justify dismissing a case. While the court allowed the appeal against the High Court central to this case to proceed, it effectively reversed the previous "assumption that even grave delay will not lead to the dismissal of an action" even where the fault of the delay lay with a legal adviser rather than the plaintiff.

<i>Sivsivadze v Minister for Justice</i>

Sivsivadze v Minister for Justice[2015] IESC 53; [2015] 2 ILRM 73; [2016] 2 IR 403 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to the constitutionality of section 3(1) of the Immigration Act 1999, under which the Minister for Justice order the deportation of a non-national for an indefinite period.

<i>Vincent Sweeney v Governor of Loughlan House Open Centre and Others</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Vincent Sweeney v Governor of Loughlan House Open Centre and Others [2014] 2 ILRM 401; [2014] IESC 42; [2014] 2 IR 732, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the sentenced served in the administrating state should be of the same legal nature as the sentence imposed by the sentencing state. This decision reversed a previous decision by the High Court that Sweeney's incarceration violated the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Acts 1995 and 1997.

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

B.S. v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESCDET 134; was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled on the determination of article 34.5.3° of the Constitution when the Court can grant an allowance for an appeal from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court. The ruling declared that the Supreme Court "is no longer a Court for the correction of error but rather a Court which has the principal constitutional task of determining issues of general importance."

<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>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>Wansboro v DPP and anor</i> Irish Supreme Court case

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.

<i>AAA & Anor v Minister for Justice & Ors</i> Irish Supreme Court case

AAA & Anor v Minister for Justice & Ors, [2017] IESC 80, was an Irish Supreme Court case which arose from the judgment delivered by Cooke J in the High Court on 17 May 2012, due to the fact that the applicant AAA and her children were deported to Nigeria in 2011. The court held that "as a rule" there is no right to an oral hearing in an application for leave to remain on humanitarian grounds and subsidiary protection where there has already been oral hearings in relation to an application for asylum. This decision clarified the grounds under which a claim for subsidiary protection could be heard.

<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>AMS v Minister for Justice and Equality</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Ams v Minister for Justice and Equality, [2015] 1 ILRM 170; [2014] IESC 65, was an Irish Supreme Court case where the Court held that Section 18 (4) of the Refugee Act 1996 allowed the Minister of Justice to assess the potential financial strain that a refugee's dependents would place on the State while deciding on an application for entry.

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

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.

Melanie Greally is an Irish judge and lawyer who has served as a Judge of the High Court since November 2022. She previously served as a Judge of the Circuit Court from 2014 and 2022.

<i>John Gilligan v Ireland & Others</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Gilligan v Ireland[2013] IESC 45; [2013] 2 IR 745; [2014] ILRM 153 is an Irish Supreme Court case where the constitutionality of section 13 of the Criminal Law Act 1976 was challenged. This statutory provision related to the sentencing of those who commit a further crime while in prison. The section primarily says that any sentence of imprisonment imposed should be consecutive to the sentence being served. It was argued that John Gilligan was subject to discrimination because of this mandatory scheme. Significantly, this case also put forward the concept of proportionality and the sentencing power given to the judiciary.

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

McNulty v DPP[2009] IESC 12; [2009] 3 IR 572 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."

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Murphy -v- Ireland & ors [2014] IESC 19, 11 March 2014, retrieved 2024-04-12
  2. ↑ Boyle, David P. (2015). "Whether DPP obliged to give reasons for decisions to try in Special Criminal Court". Irish Law Times. 33 (5) – via Westlaw IE.
  3. ↑ Keniry, Shauna (2016). "Judicial Review of the Decisions of the Director of Public Prosecutions". Trinity College Law Review. 19 (1): 196–212 – via Westlaw IE.
  4. ↑ Keniry, Shauna (2016). "JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE DECISIONS OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS". Trinity College Law Review. 1: 203 – via Westlaw IE.
  5. ↑ Carolan, Mary. "Court approves way for non-jury tax trial for Thomas 'Slab' Murphy". The Irish Times. Retrieved 2019-05-08.
  6. ↑ "Attorney General -v- Marques [2015] IEHC 798 (16 December 2015)". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 2019-05-08.
  7. ↑ "Shaw -v- Minister for Justice and Equality & ors [2018] IEHC 288 (09 March 2018)". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 2019-05-08.
  8. ↑ "McKevitt -v- Minister for Justice and Equality [2015] IEHC 152 (06 March 2015)". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 2019-05-08.
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.