Wansboro v DPP and anor

Last updated

Wansboro v. DPP and anor
Coat of arms of Ireland.svg
Coat of arms of Ireland
Court Supreme Court of Ireland
Full case name Wansboro v. Director of Public Prosecutions and The Governor of MountJoy Prison
Decided20 November 2017
Citation Wansboro v. DPP and anor [2017] IESCDET 115
Case history
Appealed fromJudgment of Faherty J. (High Court) 16 June 2017
Appealed toSupreme Court
Court membership
Judges sittingO'Donnell J. McKechnie J. MacMenamin J. Dunne J. Charleton J. O'Malley J.
Case opinions
Decision byClarke C.J
Keywords
Practice and Procedure, Post Hearing, Appeal, Constitutional Law

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. [1] [2] [3]

Contents

Background

Circuit Criminal Court

Mr. Wansboro, on 14 November 2013 appeared before the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court in respect of Bill No. 298/2012, where he was charged for an offence of unlawful taking of a vehicle, a drink driving offence and driving without a driver's license respectively. He received a three years and two six months concurrent sentences. These sentences were however suspended for a period of three years on conditions. [4] On 22 April 2015 the applicant pleaded guilty to another offence of dangerous driving causing death and serious injury on Bill No. 99/2015. The said offence was committed on 24 May 2014, he was remanded in custody until 18 May 2015 for the purpose of a sentence hearing of the offence and possible activation of the suspended sentences for Bill No. 298/2012. [4]

After hearing evidence and submission from both parties, the Court ordered the activation of the first suspended sentences and also imposed a sentence of five and half years imprisonment on Bill No. 99/2015 which would start immediately after expiration on first sentence. [5] [6]

High Court

Mr. Wansboro sought judicial review of an order of the Circuit Court on grounds of unconstitutionality. He contended that based on the decision of the High Court in Moore & Ors v. DPP [7] the Circuit Court did not have Statutory power under s. 99(9) (10) of the Criminal Justice Act. 2016. The DPP on the other hand argued that the applicant failed to appeal his decision at the time the trial Court reactivated the suspension and further argued that he also did not challenge the constitutionality of s. 99(9) (10) at the time of his conviction for the triggering offence and did not evince an intention to appeal that sentence, thus he could not benefit from the decision of Moore & Ors v. DPP.

Justice Faherty denied relief sought by the applicant. The court held there was no denial of fundamental process or non observance of due process by the Circuit Court. The Court found that the applicant did not show any intention to appeal either the reactivation of the suspended sentence or the triggering offence at the relevant time, so therefore he could not invoke the unconstitutionality in the judgement in Moore. [5]

Holding of the Supreme Court

Mr. Wansboro sought to appeal directly to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to Mr Wansboro to appeal directly from the High Court. The Court relied on Article 34.5.4 of the Constitution of Ireland which gives it right for direct appeal from the High Court if satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances warranting direct appeal. [2] The Court also considered the fact that there were two already decided cases by the Court of Appeal which follows the same reasoning as adopted by Faherty J (High Court Judge) so it is suggested that no useful purpose would be served to the applicant to first appeal to Court of Appeal.

First Issue raised by the Court was whether the general Constitutional threshold had been met?

Mr. Wansboro suggest the Constitutional threshold for leave to appeal has been met because it is an issue of the general public importance. While the DPP on the other hand argued that the decision in this case and that of the decided cases by the Court of Appeal are settled legal principles. It was established by the Supreme Court that the Constitutional threshold had been met.

The second Issue was whether it would be appropriate to grant leapfrog leave in the circumstances of this case?

In order for leapfrog leave to be granted, the general Constitution threshold of public importance or interest of justice must be met. Also for leapfrog leave to be granted, it be established that there are 'exceptional circumstances' which would justify direct appeal. [8] The court identified some of these as; costs, speed, effect on the Cases, will the issue still be alive. [9] [10] In this case, leapfrog leave was granted in view, inter alia, of the importance of obtaining clarity on "the question of the effect of the decision in Moore on pre-existing orders made under the sections which were struck down in that case". [1]

Subsequent developments

The ruling in this case was used in a recent determination to grant leave to appeal in the case of Petecel v. Minister for Social Protection [11] and leapfrog appeal in Data Protection Commissioner v. Facebook Ireland Ltd. [12]

Related Research Articles

<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>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>Sweeney v Governor of Loughan House Open Centre</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>Attorney General v Oldridge</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Attorney General v Oldridge[2000] IESC 29; [2000] 4 IR 593 was an Irish Supreme Court case which examined "whether corresponding offenses to wire fraud existed in Irish law." The court found that although "wire fraud" did not exist in Irish law, the criminal activity was covered by existing fraud laws. The result of this decision was to broaden the use of fraud and specifically to rule that the charge of "conspiracy to defraud" is constitutional.

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

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.

<i>Goold v Collins</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Goold v Collins and Ors [2004] IESC 38, [2004] 7 JIC 1201 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a statutory provision's constitutionality may be reviewed only at the behest of a litigant who is contesting some current application of that provision.

<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>Grace v An Bórd Pleanála</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>N.V.H v Minister for Justice & Equality</i> Irish Supreme Court case

N.H.V. v Minister for Justice & Equality [2017] IESC 35 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a challenge to the absolute prohibition on employment of asylum seekers contained in Section 9(4) of the Refugee Act 1996 and held it to be contrary to the constitutional right to seek employment.

<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>Persona Digital Telephony Ltd v Minister for Public Enterprise, Ireland</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Persona Digital Telephony Ltd v Minister for Public Enterprise, Ireland, [2017] IESC 27; was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that third party funding to support a plaintiff's legal costs and disbursements is unlawful.

<i>Costello v. Government of Ireland</i> Irish court case on the permissibility of the state to ratify CETA

Costello v. Government of Ireland [2022] IESC 44 is a decision of the Supreme Court of Ireland in which it held that Irish law precludes the ratification of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, an agreement signed between Canada and the European Union on 30 October 2016.

<i>Quinn Insurance Ltd v Price Waterhouse Cooper</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Quinn Insurance Ltd v Price Waterhouse Cooper [2017] IESC 73; [2017] 3 I.R. 812, is a reported Irish Supreme Court case decision where an application for leave to appeal was granted. The Court had granted leave for appeal from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court being satisfied that the issue was a matter of public importance and in the greater interest of justice.

<i>Child and Family Agency (formerly Health Service Executive) v O.A.</i> Supreme Court of Ireland case

Child and Family Agency v O.A. [2015] IESC 52, also known as Child and Family Agency (Tusla) v OA, is a reported Irish Supreme Court case decision. It was decided that parents should not get an order for costs in the District Court unless there are specific elements in the case at hand. The Supreme Court set up these specific points and ruled that the Circuit Court should only overturn District Court decisions if they do not follow the principles and criteria set out.

<i>Gilligan v Ireland</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."

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

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 inadmissible.

References

  1. 1 2 "Wansboro v. DPP [2017] 11 JIC 2004". Justis Irish Cases– via JustisOne.
  2. 1 2 Book (eISB), electronic Irish Statute. "electronic Irish Statute Book (eISB)". www.irishstatutebook.ie. Retrieved 12 November 2019.
  3. ↑ Lambe, Deirdre; Curley, Vanessa (2018). "LEGAL UPDATE The Bar Review, journal of The Bar of Ireland". The Bar Review. 23 (1): i – via Westlaw IE.
  4. 1 2 Wansboro v. DPP [2017] IEHC 391
  5. 1 2 "JustisOne". app.justis.com. Retrieved 13 November 2019.
  6. ↑ "Supreme Court: Man whose suspended sentence was reactivated is entitled to rely on finding of unconstitutionality in Moore". Irish Legal News. 7 January 2019. Retrieved 15 November 2019.
  7. ↑ [2016] IEHC 434
  8. ↑ "Stairway to heaven". www.lawsociety.ie. Retrieved 14 November 2019.
  9. ↑ Feldman, Estelle (2017). "Constitutional Law". Annual Review of Irish Law. 1 (1): 117 – via Westlaw IE.
  10. ↑ "Leapfrog and Tertiary Appeals: When and How?". www.mccannfitzgerald.com. Retrieved 14 November 2019.
  11. ↑ [2019] IESC 58
  12. ↑ [2018] IESC 38
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.