Supporting Documents:
 121-17 AFL.pdf 121-17 Rspndt Notce.docx,  117-17 Rspndt Notce.docx,  116-17 Rspndt Notce csso.pdf,  120-17 AFL.pdf 120-17 Rspndt Notce.pdf 120-17 Rspndts Notice.pdf,  118-17 AFL.pdf
THE SUPREME COURT
DETERMINATION
IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION SANDRA MAGUIRE APPLICANT AND
THE GOVERNOR OF MOUNTJOY PRISON (THE DOCHAS CENTRE) RESPONDENT
THOMAS BRENNAN APPLICANT AND
THE GOVERNOR OF CASTLEREA PRISON RESPONDENT
MORUFU ADEMOLA ANIMASHAUN APPLICANT AND
THE GOVERNOR OF MOUNTJOY PRISON RESPONDENT
NAPOLEON SILAGHI APPLICANT AND
JUDGE JOHN O’HAGAN AND THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS RESPONDENTS
LUCIAN MARINA APPLICANT AND
JUDGE JOHN O’HAGAN AND THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS RESPONDENTS
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO WHICH ARTICLE 34.5.3° OF THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES.
Result: The Court grants leave to appeal.
Reasons Given:
Jurisdiction
1. These five applications relate to five matters dealt with by the Court of Appeal in a single judgment – see Maguire v. Governor of Mountjoy Prison [2017] IECA 142. The issues raised are, in very brief summary, the obligations of a judge of the Circuit Court dealing with a District Court appeal in a criminal case where the appellant does not appear, and the question whether a valid committal warrant must record consideration by the judge of the option of community service.
2. As is clear from the terms of the Constitution and many determinations made by this Court since the enactment of the 33rd Amendment it is necessary, in order for this Court to grant leave, that it be established that the decision sought to be appealed either involves a matter of general public importance or that it is otherwise in the interest of justice necessary that there be an appeal to this Court.
3. The Court considers it desirable to point out that a determination of the Court on an application for leave, while it is final and conclusive so far as the parties are concerned, is a decision in relation to that application only. The issue is whether the questions raised, and the facts underpinning them, meet the constitutional criteria for leave. It will not, save in the rarest of circumstances, be appropriate to rely on a refusal of leave as having a precedential value in relation to the substantive issues in the context of a different case. Where leave is granted, any issue canvassed in the application will in due course be disposed of in the substantive decision of the Court.
The application for leave
4. The notices filed by the parties are available on this website and will not be summarised here.
Discussion
5. As is clear from a range of determinations made by this Court since the 33rd Amendment of the Constitution came into force, the constitutional function of this Court is no longer that of an appeal court designed to correct alleged errors by the trial court. Where it is said that the High Court, or another court from which the Court of Appeal has appellate jurisdiction prescribed by law, has simply been in error in some material respect, the constitutional regime now in place confers jurisdiction to correct any such error as may be established on the Court of Appeal. Rather the text of the Constitution now in place makes it clear that an appeal to this Court, whether directly from the High Court under Article 34.5.4° or from the Court of Appeal under Article 34.5.3°, requires that it be established that the decision sought to be appealed against involves a matter of general public importance or that it otherwise is in the interests of justice necessary to allow an appeal to this Court. It will rarely be necessary in the interests of justice to permit an appeal to this Court simply because it is said that the lower court was in error. An appeal to the Court of Appeal provides the appropriate remedy for any error made by the High Court. Likewise, a party which has had the opportunity to have the decision of the High Court reviewed by the Court of Appeal will have had the benefit of having been able to put its case both at trial and on appeal. Without more, the interests of justice will not require a further review on appeal to this Court.
6. It is against that background that it is necessary to consider the basis on which it is said that the constitutional threshold is met in this case.
Decision
7. The Court considers that points of law of general public importance arise in respect of the two issues raised and will accordingly grant leave to appeal. The precise formulation of the issues will be addressed in the course of case management.
8. The Court observes at this stage that, although leave is granted in all five cases, the issues will be more efficiently determined if two are selected for hearing and the others are left to await the outcome. It should therefore be noted that in the absence of agreement the case management judge will select two cases for hearing, with the other matters being adjourned until after judgment.
And It is hereby so ordered accordingly.
|