Supreme Court of Ireland Annual ReportWeb... · 2020-02-26 · The Hardiman Lecture Series ... and is the final arbiter and interpreter of Bunreacht na hÉireann, the Constitution

Cúirt Uachtarach na hÉireannSupreme Court of Ireland

Annual Report

Supreme C

ourt of Ireland Annual R

eport 2019

Report published by the Supreme Court of Ireland

with the support of the Courts Service.

Editors:

Sarahrose Murphy,

Senior Executive Legal Officer to the Chief Justice

Patrick Conboy,

Executive Legal Officer to the Chief Justice

Case summaries prepared

by the following Judicial Assistants:

Giacomo Bonetto

Seán Beatty

Laurenz Boss

Shane Finn

Patricia Erasmus

Cormac Hickey

Caoimhe Hunter Blair

Hansi Fischer Kerrane

Rachael O’Byrne

Ceara Tonna-Barthet

© Supreme Court of Ireland 2020

Cúirt Uachtarach na hÉireannSupreme Court of IrelandAnnual Report 2019

2 | Supreme Court of Ireland Annual Report 2019

Table of Contents Foreword .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 6

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 9

2019 at a glance .................................................................................................................................................................................. 11

About the Supreme Court of Ireland .................................................................................................................................................. 15

The Branches of Government in Ireland ........................................................................................................................................... 16

About the Supreme Court of Ireland .................................................................................................................................................. 17

Background .................................................................................................................................................................................... 17

Appellate jurisdiction .................................................................................................................................................................... 17

Appellate constitutional jurisdiction ............................................................................................................................................ 18

Original jurisdiction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 18

Structure of the Courts of Ireland ...................................................................................................................................................... 19

Seat of the Supreme Court ................................................................................................................................................................ 20

The Supreme Court Courtroom .................................................................................................................................................... 21

Journey of a typical Appeal ............................................................................................................................................................... 22

The reformed jurisdiction of the Supreme Court – five years on ..................................................................................................... 26

‘Leapfrog’ appeals .......................................................................................................................................................................... 27

Case management ........................................................................................................................................................................ 28

Members of the Supreme Court ........................................................................................................................................................ 29

Mr. Justice Frank Clarke ................................................................................................................................................................... 30

The Role of the Chief Justice .............................................................................................................................................................. 31

President of the Supreme Court and judicial functions ............................................................................................................... 31

Presidential Commission .............................................................................................................................................................. 31

Council of State .............................................................................................................................................................................. 31

Other responsibilities .................................................................................................................................................................... 31

Appointments ............................................................................................................................................................................... 32

Commissioner for Oaths .............................................................................................................................................................. 32

Admittance of barristers .............................................................................................................................................................. 32

Notaries Public ............................................................................................................................................................................. 32

Declarations of newly appointed judges ...................................................................................................................................... 33

Statement to Mark the Opening of the 2019/2020 Legal Year ................................................................................................... 33

International Engagement ........................................................................................................................................................... 34

Mr. Justice Donal O’Donnell ......................................................................................................................................................... 35

Mr. Justice William M. McKechnie ............................................................................................................................................. 36

Mr. Justice John MacMenamin .................................................................................................................................................... 37

Ms. Justice Elizabeth Dunne ........................................................................................................................................................ 38

Mr. Justice Peter Charleton ......................................................................................................................................................... 39

Ms. Justice Iseult O’Malley .......................................................................................................................................................... 40

Ms. Justice Mary Irvine ................................................................................................................................................................. 41

Ms. Justice Marie Baker ............................................................................................................................................................... 42

Mr. Justice George Birmingham .................................................................................................................................................. 43

Mr. Justice Peter Kelly ................................................................................................................................................................. 44

Retirement and Appointments .......................................................................................................................................................... 45

The Constitution of Ireland ................................................................................................................................................................ 47

The structure of the Constitution .................................................................................................................................................. 47

The Constitution and the Courts .................................................................................................................................................. 48

Amending and Interpreting the Constitution .............................................................................................................................. 49


Sixth enrolment of the Constitution ................................................................................................................................................. 50

Women on the Supreme Court ........................................................................................................................................................... 53

Unveiling of historic Judicial Robe sketch ........................................................................................................................................ 56

The Judicial Council .......................................................................................................................................................................... 58

Statistics ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 60

Applications for Leave to Appeal ................................................................................................................................................. 60

Categorisation of Applications for Leave to Appeal ..................................................................................................................... 61

Full Appeals Determined in 2019 ................................................................................................................................................ 66

Requests for Preliminary Rulings by the Supreme Court to the Court of Justice of the European Union ................................. 67

Leapfrog appeals where refusal to certify leave Court ................................................................................................................. 68

Reserved judgments ..................................................................................................................................................................... 68

Case summaries ................................................................................................................................................................................. 69

F v. M [2019] IESC 1 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 70

A.M. v. Health Services Executive [2019] IESC 3 ........................................................................................................................ 71

Kerins v. McGuinness & ors (No. 1) [2019] IESC 11 ..................................................................................................................... 72

O’Brien v. Clerk of Dáil Éireann & ors [2019] IESC 12 ............................................................................................................... 74

Mohan v. Ireland [2019] IESC 18 ................................................................................................................................................. 76

Director of Public Prosecutions v. Mahon [2019] IESC 24 ......................................................................................................... 77

P. v. Judges of the Circuit Court [2019] IESC 26 ........................................................................................................................ 78

Ellis v. Minister for Justice and Equality & ors [2019] IESC 30 ................................................................................................. 79

B.S. & R.S. v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal & ors [2019] IESC 32 ................................................................................................. 80

Bates & anor. v. Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food & ors [2019] IESC 35 ............................................................... 81

Sweeney v. Ireland [2019] IESC 39 ............................................................................................................................................. 82

Kerins v. McGuinness & ors (No. 2) [2019] IESC 42 .................................................................................................................. 83

F. v. Mental Health Tribunal & ors [2019] IESC 44 ................................................................................................................... 85

A.P. v. Minister for Justice and Equality [2019] IESC 42 .......................................................................................................... 86

Data Protection Commissioner v. Facebook Ireland Ltd. & anor [2019] IESC 46 ................................................................... 87

Tobin v. Minister for Defence [2019] IESC 57 ............................................................................................................................ 88

X.X. Minister for Justice and Equality [2019] IESC 59 ............................................................................................................. 89

Nano Nagle School v. Daly [2019] IESC 63 ................................................................................................................................ 90

Harlequin Property (SVG) Limited & ors. V. O’Halloran and anor [2019] IESC 76 ................................................................. 91

McKelvey v. Iarnrod Éireann/Irish Rail [2019] IESC 79 .......................................................................................................... 92

Minister for Justice and Equality v. Celmer [2019] IESC 80 .................................................................................................... 93

Simpson v. Governor of Mountjoy Prison [2019] IESC 81 ......................................................................................................... 94

Michael (a minor) and ors v. Minister for Social Protection & ors [2019] IESC 82 ................................................................. 96

Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank v. O’Malley [2019] IESC 84 ................................................................................................... 98

Director of Public Prosecutions v. F.E. [2019] IESC 85 ............................................................................................................. 99

E.R. v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2019] IESC 86 ........................................................................................................... 100

Fagan & ors. Dublin City Council [2019] IESC 96 .................................................................................................................... 102

Director of Public Prosecutions v. C.Ce [2019] IESC 96 ............................................................................................................ 104

Education and Outreach ................................................................................................................................................................... 107

Supreme Court Sitting in Galway ................................................................................................................................................ 107

Comhrá – a video call initiative with secondary schools ............................................................................................................ 109

Third Level Institutions................................................................................................................................................................ 111

Mooting Competitions ................................................................................................................................................................. 113

Student Law Reviews .................................................................................................................................................................. 114

Supreme Court Review ................................................................................................................................................................ 114


Publications and extra-judicial speeches .................................................................................................................................... 114

The Honorable Society of King’s Inns ......................................................................................................................................... 115

The Bar of Ireland and the Law Society of Ireland ..................................................................................................................... 115

Faculty of Notaries Public ............................................................................................................................................................ 117

Chief Justice’s Summer Internship Programme for Law Students ............................................................................................ 118

The Hardiman Lecture Series ..................................................................................................................................................... 120

Launch of the OUTLaw Network ................................................................................................................................................ 120

International Engagement ............................................................................................................................................................... 122

International Organisations ........................................................................................................................................................ 122

ACA-Europe Seminar hosted by the Supreme Court of Ireland on ‘How our Courts Decide: The Decision-making Processes of Supreme Administrative Courts’ ................................................................................................................................................. 124

Meetings with Judiciary of other Jurisdictions .......................................................................................................................... 128

Judicial exchange programmes ................................................................................................................................................... 129

Visits to the Supreme Court ........................................................................................................................................................ 129

Attendance of Judges of the Supreme Court an international events........................................................................................ 130

Supporting the Supreme Court – ..................................................................................................................................................... 132

The Courts Service ............................................................................................................................................................................ 132

The Courts Service ....................................................................................................................................................................... 132

Registrar of the Supreme Court .................................................................................................................................................. 133

Supreme Court Office .................................................................................................................................................................. 134

New Developments ...................................................................................................................................................................... 134

6th Enrolment of the Constitution ............................................................................................................................................... 135

Office of the Chief Justice ............................................................................................................................................................ 136

Superior Court Operations Directorate ...................................................................................................................................... 137

Legal research management ....................................................................................................................................................... 137

Ushers .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 138

Judicial Secretaries ...................................................................................................................................................................... 138

Judicial Assistants ....................................................................................................................................................................... 139

Judicial Assistants – a day in the life .......................................................................................................................................... 140

A look to 2020 .................................................................................................................................................................................. 143

Sitting of the Supreme Court in the South East .......................................................................................................................... 143

Comhrá ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 144

Summer Internship Programme for Law Students 2020 .......................................................................................................... 144

Bilateral engagement with the Supreme Court of Canada ......................................................................................................... 144

Biennial meeting with United Kingdom Judiciaries. ................................................................................................................. 144


The Supreme Court sitting as a full Court of all its members

TheSupremeCourtof Ireland isat theapex of the courts system in the StateandisthefinalarbiterandinterpreterofBunreachtnahÉireann,theConstitutionofIreland,whichistheState’sbasiclaw.

PursuanttoArticle34.5.1°oftheConstitution,“theCourtof FinalAppeal shallbe called theSupreme Court.” The Supreme Court enjoysbothanappellateandanoriginaljurisdictionasprescribedbytheConstitution.Thejurisdictionof the Court was altered in 2014 upon theestablishmentoftheCourtofAppeal.

In principle, a party may bring before theSupremeCourtanappealinrespectofanytypeof case, includinga civilor criminal lawcase,provided that the case meets the thresholdwhichtheConstitutionsetsout.

AnobjectiveoftheSupremeCourtistoensurethat the lawswhich theOireachtas, Ireland’sParliament,enactareupheldand interpretedin light of the Constitution and thejurisprudencethathasdevelopedsinceitcameintoforcein1937.

The Supreme Court of Ireland is also,therefore,aconstitutionalcourt.

Inaddition,theSupremeCourthasarolein the implementation of the law of theEuropeanUnionand,asthecourtoffinalappeal in Ireland, is obliged under theTreatyontheFunctioningoftheEuropeanUnion to refer questions regarding theinterpretation of EU law which arises incasesbefore it to theCourtof Justice ofthe European Union where theinterpretationisnotclearandclarificationis necessary in order for the SupremeCourttodecideaquestionbeforeit.

TheSupremeCourt,throughitsdecisions,bringsfinalitytotheappealsbroughtandheardbeforeit.Asthehighestcourtintheland, thedecisionsof theSupremeCourthave binding precedence on all othercourtsofIreland.


Foreword by the Chief Justice Mr. Justice Frank Clarke

“NotwithstandingtheextensiveinvolvementoftheSupremeCourtinnationalandinternationalinitiatives,conductingtheCourt’scorework-determiningthecasesthatcomesbeforeit–mustalwaysremainoneoftheCourt’sprimaryobjectives”

I amdelighted topresent this secondannual reportof theSupremeCourtwhich

highlightstheworkundertakenbytheCourtbothinsideandoutsidethecourtroom

during2019.

Different sections of this report set out the involvement of our court in both national andinternationalinitiativesoutsidethecourtroom.However,thecoreworkofanySupremeCourtmustbetohearanddeterminethecaseswhichcomebeforeit.Doingsoinatimelyandefficientwaymustalwaysremainoneofourprimaryobjectives.InthatcontextIwouldliketodrawparticularattentiontothreematters.First,asaresultofareviewof the early years of the operation of the reformed jurisdiction of the SupremeCourt(whichcameaboutbecauseoftheestablishmentoftheCourtofAppeal),adjustedproceduralrulesandareformulatedpracticedirectionwereintroducedwithaviewtoimprovingourprocessinthelightofexperience.Oneoftheconsequencesoftheoperationofthosenewruleshasbeento reduce the timewithinwhichapplications for leave toappealareconsideredby theCourt.Obviouslythetimetakentodeterminewhetherleavetoappealshouldbegrantedcanbeaffectedby any failure by a party or parties to file required documentationwithin the time specified.However,thenewstructureshouldallowforadecisiononwhethertograntleavetoappealtobetakenwithinnomorethantenweeksprovidedthatthereisbroadcompliancebythepartieswiththosetimelimits.


Second,andofparticularimportance,isthetimetaken,inthosecaseswhereleaveisgranted,fromtheserviceofthenoticeofintentiontoproceed(whichistheformalstartofthesubstantiveappealprocessincaseswhereleavehasbeengranted)tothetimewhentheappealisactuallyheard.Wehavelookedatalloftheappealswhichwerelistedforhearingduringthefirsttermof2020. Twoof thoseappealsencountered somepracticaldifficultiesduring casemanagementwith,indeed,oneofthosetwoappealsrequiringarehearing.Ifthosetwoappealsareexcludedandifthetimetakenduringthelongvacationisnotreckoned,theaverageperiodfromserviceofthenoticeofintentiontoproceedtohearingdateisnow122daysoralmostexactlyfourmonths.Thethirdelementofthetimetakentoafinaldeterminationofanappealis,ofcourse,theperiodbetweenthehearingandthedeliveryofjudgment.InthatcontextthereareregularlistingsofallcaseswherethatperiodexceedstwomonthsandIamhappytosaythatthenumberofcasesappearinginsuchlistsinrecenttimeshavebeenatthelowestsincethatpracticewasintroduced.IamalsohappythattheSupremeCourtwasabletoassistintheclearingofthelegacybacklogofappealswhichweretransferredfromtheSupremeCourttotheCourtofAppeal,underArt.64ofthe Constitution, when that court was established. As appears elsewhere in this report, theSupremeCourttookbackasignificantnumberofsuchcasesandhasnowdeterminedthem.TheCourtofAppealhas,itself,virtuallyfinishedthetaskofdealingwiththeremainingcasessothatitcannow,Ithink,safelybesaidthatthereareveryfewremaininglegacyappealsandallofthosewhichdoremainhavehadproblemsofonesortoranotherwhichhavepreventedthemfrombeingfinalised.Butpreciselybecause theSupremeCourthasnowcleared itsown legacyappeals andwill nolonger have cases returning to it from theCourt ofAppeal, itwill be possible to put in placeenhancedinternalprotocolstoensurethatthetimebetweenhearinganddeliveryofjudgmentiskepttotheminimum.ThatbeingsaiditmustalwaysbeemphasisedthatthecasesnowbeinghearbytheSupremeCourtare,byconstitutionaldefinition,allcasesofgeneralpublicimportancewhich have, inevitably, a significance beyond the individual case. In such circumstances it isparticularlyimportantthattheimplicationsofthejudgmentsoftheCourtarecarefullyworkedout.Itfollowsinturnthatatleastsomecasesdorequireverydetailedandcomplexconsiderationbeforejudgmentcanbedelivered.However,theaboveanalysissuggeststhat,atleastinverymanycases,andinparticularwheretherearenosignificantdelaysinthefilingofrelevantdocuments,theCourtmayhopetobeabletodealwiththeentireprocessfromapplicationforleavetoappealtothedeliveryofjudgmentinninetotenmonths.Ifranklydonotthinkthatitwillbepossibletoreducethattimemuchfurtherexcept inthoseveryrarecaseswhereurgencyrequiresthatwhatmightotherwisebeseenasunrealisticdemandsareplacedbothonthepartiesandontheCourt.


Finally,inrelationtotheCourt’sownprocess,Ihavetorecordthattheuptakeonthesystemputinplace formakingapplications for leave toappealonlinehasbeendisappointing. However,discussions took place just before Christmas with representatives of the Law Society in thatregard. Proposalsforsomesmallchangestotheway inwhichthesystemoperatesareunderactiveconsiderationandIwouldverymuchhopethat,bythistimenextyear, Iwillbeabletoreportonaradicallychangedlandscapeinthisregard.ThisreportalsoidentifiesthecontinuingsignificantinternationalobligationsoftheCourt.Iamconvincedthat,notleastinthecontextofBrexit,theseinternationalrelationswill, ifanything,increaseinimportanceforIrelandoverthecomingyears.Butitdoeshavetobesaidthatweareasmalljudiciaryanddonothavethenumbersavailabletoothercomparablecourts(eventhoseofrelativelysmallcountries)sothattheburdenplacedonourjudgesiscorrespondinglylarger.InthatsamecontextIshouldalsosaythat,whiletheestablishmentoftheJudicialCouncilisverymuchtobewelcomed,theproperoperationofthatcouncilanditsmanycommitteeswillalsoplace additional burdens on the judiciary. Where matters are to be decided which haveimplicationsforthejudiciaryasawhole,itisparticularlyimportantthatjudgesofalljurisdictionsareinvolvedandthatjudgesbasedoutsideDublinplayafullrole.Butwemustberealisticaboutthedemandsthatplacesonjudgeswhohavebusyliststoconduct.As this report also notes, we have continued to expand our national outreach programmes.During2019theCourtsatinGalwayandwill,in2020,sitinbothWaterfordandKilkenny.Itisproposed that we will visit the north west in 2021 with sittings planned for Castlebar andLetterkenny.IamalsoparticularlyhappywiththepilotComhráprogrammewhichenablessecondaryschoolstudentstoaskquestionsby live linkto judgesoftheSupremeCourt. Weverymuchhopetobuildonthatpilotprogrammeduring2020.OnmyownbehalfandonbehalfofmycolleaguesIshouldalsoexpressourdeepappreciationofthesupportwhichwereceivefromthestaffoftheCourtsServicegenerallybutinparticularthosemembersofstaff,detailedinthisreport,whoworkdirectlytotheSupremeCourtanditsjudges.TheirinvaluableassistanceenablesustoconcentrateondoingthatpartoftheworkofanycourtwhichistheessentialjobofjudgesbeingtodecidecasesinafairbuttimelyfashionMr.JusticeFrankClarkeChiefJustice

DublinFebruary2020


IamverypleasedtointroducethissecondannualreportwhichisacomprehensivereflectionoftheimportantandvariedworkoftheCourtandthosewhosupportitduring2019.

TheChief Justice hasdetailed the significant improvement inwaiting times in his foreword.ThelegacyappealissuewhichsubsistedinrecentyearshasbeenresolvedinthisCourtandsubstantivelyresolvedintheCourtofAppeal.Inparallelin2019,therehasbeena19%increaseinthenumberofapplicationsforleavetoappealfiledwhencomparedtothepreviousyearand,inaddition, therehasbeena56%increaseinthenumberofsuchapplicationsdeterminedbytheCourt.Therewerealso significant increases in the number of appeals disposed of and in the number of writtenjudgmentsdeliveredby theCourt.Thecontinuing increase in thebusinessof theCourtwhich isevidentfromthesepageshaspresentedfurtheradministrativechallengefortheOfficeoftheCourtbutIamgladthatnotwithstandingthiswehavebeeninapositiontomakeourcontributiontotheoverallimprovementinourbusinesspositionduring2019.

AstheChiefJusticehasmentionedrevisedrulesandarevisedpracticedirectionwereintroducedearly in 2019 and a new pilot system to facilitate on-line filing of applications for leave bypractitionerswasalso introduced.Thiscontinuestheprogrammeto improvethewaythatwedoourbusinessandtoimproveourlevelofservice.Thenewprovisionsinrespectofcasemanagementhave, I believe,workedverywell andhavemadea further contribution to the justand efficientdetermination of appeals. The Officewill continue to engagewith practitioners during 2020, inparticular,toincreasetheuptakeoftheon-linefilingsystemwhichisanimportantinitiativefortheCourtandfortheCourtsService.

Introduction by the Registrar of the Supreme Court Mr. John Mahon

“Therewasayear-on-yearincreaseof19%inthenumberofapplicationsforleavetoappealfiledin2019.Inaddition,therehasbeena56%increaseinthenumberofsuchapplicationsbeingdeterminedbytheCourt.”


Iamparticularlydelightedthat inNovemberanewtextoftheConstitutionwasenrolled intheOfficeoftheCourt.Thiswasthe6thenrolment,thelastonehavingoccurredsometwentyyearsagoin1999.PursuanttoArticle2553°oftheConstitutionthistextisconclusiveevidenceoftheConstitutionand is thedefinitive text. I amgrateful for the significantworkundertakenby theDepartmentoftheTaoiseach,theAttorneyGeneral’sOfficeandtheOfficeofthePresidentleadingtothisenrolment.IandthestaffoftheOfficeareproudtoberesponsibleforitssafecustody.

Ourstaffcontinuetorisetothechallengeofincreasingbusinessandatthesametimeprovideahighqualityservicetojudges,litigants,practitionersandtothepublicandIamverygratefulthatindoingsotheymaintainsuchgoodhumourandespritdecorps.

IamverygratefultotheChiefJusticeandtothejudgesoftheCourtfortheirsupportthroughouttheyearwhichhasbeeninstrumental inallowingustomaintainwhatIbelievehasbeenaverygoodlevelofservicetopractitionersandtothepublic.Welookforwardto2020andtothefurtherinitiativesplannedtomakecontinuedimprovementsintheservicesthatweprovide.

JohnMahon

RegistraroftheSupremeCourt

February2020


2019 at a glance

ApplicationsforLeave

received

Appealsdisposedof

ApplicationsforLeavedetermined

Reservedjudgmentsdelivered

Article64applicationsdetermined

11judges(9+2exofficio)(1vacancy)

229

248

144

131

71



“The Court of Final Appeal shall be called the Supreme Court.” Article 34.5.1° of Bunreacht na hÉireann

1

Part 1About the Supreme Court of Ireland

Supreme Court of IrelandAnnual Report 2019


About the Supreme Court of Ireland

Article6oftheConstitutionofIreland,orBunreachtnahÉireannintheIrishlanguage,prescribesthat“[a]llpowersofgovernment,legislative,executiveandjudicial,deriveunderGod,fromthepeople.”

Article34.1oftheConstitutionprovidesthat“[j]usticeshallbeadministeredincourtsestablishedbylawbyjudgesappointedinthemannerprovidedby[the]Constitution.”AsmembersofthehighestcourtinIreland,judgesoftheSupremeCourtarepartofoneofthethreebranchesofgovernment:theJudiciary,withtheothertwobeingtheLegislatureandtheExecutive.Eachbranchhasitsownconstitutionalfunctionsandthustheprincipleoftheseparationofpowersisrespected.

TheSupremeCourtwasestablishedin1937pursuanttoArticle34oftheConstitutionofIreland.ItisthefinalcourtofappealinallareasoflawandisthehighestofthefivetiersofcourtjurisdictioninIreland,theothercourtsbeingtheDistrictCourt,theCircuitCourt,theHighCourtandtheCourtofAppeal.

TheSupremeCourtconsidersappealsfromtheCourtofAppealwhereitissatisfiedthattherelevantdecisioninvolvesamatterofgeneralpublicimportanceorthatitisintheinterestsofjusticethattherebeanappealtotheSupremeCourt.

In addition, the Supreme Court considers appeals directly from the High Court,bypassing or “leap-frogging” the Court of Appeal, where there are exceptionalcircumstanceswhichwarrantsuchadirectappeal.Anappealdirectly fromtheHighCourttotheSupremeCourtiscolloquiallyreferredtoasa“leapfrog”appeal.

TheSupremeCourtdeterminesallappealsproperlybroughtbeforeitonallmattersinrespectofwhich leavetoappeal isgranted.Suchappealsoften involvequestionsofinterpretationoftheConstitution,andoflegislation,andmayinvolvethequestionofthevalidityofanylawhavingregardtotheprovisionsoftheConstitution.

TheSupremeCourtalsohasjurisdictiontodeterminetheconstitutionalityofBillswhichthe President refers to it. In addition, the SupremeCourt is the bodywhich, underArticle12.3oftheConstitution,isrequiredtodetermineifthePresidentofIrelandispermanentlyincapacitated.


The Judiciary

Article34oftheConstitutionexpresslystatesthat"[j]usticeshallbeadministeredincourtsestablishedbylawbyJudgesappointedinthemannerprovidedby[the]Constitution”

Ø JudgesareappointedbythePresidentonthenominationoftheGovernment.

Ø JudgesarerequiredtomakeaDeclarationtoupholdtheConstitution and the laws and shall be independent intheexerciseoftheirjudicialfunctionsandsubjectonlytotheConstitutionandthelaw.

Ø Judges have the power to review the compatibility ofstatutes with the Constitution and to judicially reviewsubordinate legislation, decisions or actions of theGovernmentorStatebodieswithaviewtodeterminingtheirlegalityandcompatibilitywiththeConstitution,andprinciples deriving from the Constitution such as dueprocess.

The Executive

TheExecutive,alsoreferredtoastheGovernmentortheCabinet,istheGovernmentofIrelandandisprovidedforinArticle28ofthe Constitution, which stipulates that the Government mustconsistofnofewerthan7,andnomorethan15membersandincludes theTaoiseach (PrimeMinister)who is theheadof theExecutiveandhisnext-in-command,theTánaiste(DeputyPrimeMinister).

TheGovernmentisresponsibletoDáilÉireann.

Ø The Executive is responsible for implementing lawspassedbytheOireachtas.

Ø TheGovernmentdecidesmajorquestionsofpolicyandcarries out a number of different and importantfunctions.

Ø The Government meets and acts as a collectiveauthority and is collectively responsible for all theDepartmentsofState.

The Branches of Government in Ireland

The Legislature

The Judiciary

The Executive

The Legislature

ComprisedoftheOireachtas(thePresidentandtheHousesoftheOireachtasbeingDáilÉireann(HouseofRepresentatives)andSeanadÉireann(theSenate)).

Ø MembersofDáilÉireannaredirectlyelectedbytheElectoratewithmembersofSeanadÉireannbeingeitherelectedornominatedinamannerprovidedforintheConstitutionandstatutelaw.

Ø Considersandenactslawsbywayoflegislation.Ø EnactslawsthatarepresumedtobeinaccordancewiththeConstitution.


About the Supreme Court of Ireland

Background Prior to theestablishmentof theCourtofAppeal inOctober2014, therewere four tiersof courtjurisdictioninIreland:theDistrictCourt,theCircuitCourt,theHighCourt,andtheSupremeCourt.TheConstitution of Ireland provided for an almost automatic right of appeal from the High Court, aconstitutionallyestablishedSuperiorCourtofIrelandwithfirstinstancefulloriginaljurisdiction,totheSupremeCourtinrelationtocivilcaseswhichoriginatedintheHighCourt.

Asa resultofaconstitutionalReferendumheld in2013,whichwasapprovedbyamajorityof thePeople,theConstitutionnowprovidesforaCourtofAppealwhichoccupiesanappellatejurisdictiontierbetweentheHighCourtandtheSupremeCourt.

Inessence,theSupremeCourtexercisesthreeseparateanddistinctjurisdictions,namely:

(i) anappellatejurisdiction;(ii) anappellateconstitutionaljurisdiction;and(iii) anoriginaljurisdictionasexpresslyprovidedforintheConstitution.

Appellate jurisdiction Article34.5.3°oftheConstitutionprovidesthat:-

“The Supreme Court shall, subject to such regulations asmay be prescribed by law, haveappellatejurisdictionfromadecisionoftheCourtofAppealiftheSupremeCourtissatisfiedthat–

i. thedecisioninvolvesamatterofgeneralpublicimportance,orii. in the interests of justice it is necessary that there be an appeal to the Supreme

Court.”

Inaddition,Article34.5.4°oftheConstitutionprovidesthat:-

“Notwithstandingsection4.1°hereof,theSupremeCourtshall,subjecttosuchregulationsasmaybeprescribedbylaw,haveappellatejurisdictionfromadecisionoftheHighCourtiftheSupremeCourtissatisfiedthatthereareexceptionalcircumstanceswarrantingadirectappealtoit,andapreconditionfortheSupremeCourtbeingsosatisfiedisthepresenceofeitherorbothofthefollowingfactors:

i. thedecisioninvolvesamatterofgeneralpublicimportance;ii. theinterestsofjustice.”

TheSupremeCourthasaparticularroleintheapplicationofEuropeanUnionlawasitis,asthecourtof final appeal, obliged to refer questions of EU law arising in cases before it concerning (a) theinterpretationoftheEUTreatiesor(b)thevalidityaninterpretationofactsof institutions,bodies,officesoragenciesoftheUniontotheCourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanUnionwherenecessarytoenabletheSupremeCourttodecidethecasebeforeit.


Appellate constitutional jurisdiction Article34.4.5°oftheConstitutionprovides:-

“NolawshallbeenactedexceptionfromtheappellatejurisdictionoftheSupremeCourtcaseswhichinvolvequestionsastothevalidityofanylawhavingregardtotheprovisionsof[the]Constitution.”

Asaresult,theSupremeCourtmaybesaidtofunctionasaconstitutionalcourtasitisthefinalarbiterin interpreting theConstitutionof Ireland. This is a roleofparticular importance in Irelandas theConstitution expressly permits the courts to review any law, whether passed before or after theenactmentoftheConstitution,inordertoascertainwhetheritconformswiththeConstitution.WhilesuchcasesmustbebroughtinthefirstinstanceintheHighCourt,thereisanappealfromeverysuchdecisiontotheCourtofAppeal,andtheSupremeCourtifthethresholdismet.Subordinatelegislationand administrative decisions may also be subjected to such constitutional scrutiny. The SuperiorCourts retain the power to annul legislation that is determined to be inconsistent with theConstitution.

Original jurisdiction TheConstitutionofIrelandconfersontheSupremeCourttwofirstinstancefunctions.UnderArticle26oftheConstitution,thePresidentofIrelandmay,afterconsultationwiththeCouncilofStatereferalegislativeBilldeemedtohavebeenpassedbybothHousesoftheOireachtasforadecisiononthequestionofwhethersuchBilloranyspecifiedprovisionorprovisionsofsuchBillisorarerepugnanttotheConstitutionortoanyconstitutionalprovision.

ShouldtheSupremeCourtdecidethattheBillreferred,oranyofitsprovisions,isincompatiblewiththeConstitutionitshallnotbesignedorpromulgatedaslawbythePresident.IftheSupremeCourtconcludesthataBillwhichhasbeenreferredtoitundertheArticle26mechanismisnotincompatiblewiththeConstitution,thelegislationinquestioncannotbechallengedagainbeforetheCourtsforaslongasitremainsinforce.

SincethecomingintoforceoftheConstitutionofIrelandin1937,theArticle26mechanismhasbeeninvokedbythePresidenton15occasions,withtheSupremeCourtdetermininginsevenofthosecasesthattheBillorapartthereofwasrepugnanttotheConstitution.AlthoughthePresidentretainsasolediscretiontoinvoketheArticle26mechanism,itsuseisrareandthelastyearinwhichtheSupremeCourtwasaskedtoconsideraBillundertheArticle26procedurewasin2005whenitwasaskedtodetermine the provisions of the Health (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2004 were repugnant to theConstitutionornot.Inthatreference,theSupremeCourtfoundthattheretrospectiveprovisionsofthatBillwererepugnanttotheConstitution.

Article 26.2.2° of the Constitution provides that the decision of themajority of the judges of theSupremeCourt,inhearinganArticle26reference,shallbethedecisionoftheCourt.Nootheropinion,heldbyamemberoftheCourt,whetherassentingordissenting,shallbepronouncednorshalltheexistenceofanysuchotheropinionbedisclosed.Thisiscolloquiallyreferredtoasa“one-judgmentrule”.

Theother first instance jurisdictionof theSupremeCourt,which todatehasnotbeen invoked, isprovidedforinArticle12oftheConstitution,whichstatesthatthequestionofwhetherthePresidentofIrelandhasbecomepermanentlyincapacitatedmustbedeterminedbynotlessthanfivejudgesoftheCourt.


Structure of the Courts of Ireland

Irelandhasa five-tieredcourtsystemwithboththeDistrictandCircuitCourtsservingascourtsoflocalandlimitedjurisdiction.TheHighCourtenjoysfullandoriginaljurisdictioninallmattersoffactandlaw,whethercriminalorcivil.Thesethree Courts are courts of first instance and their respective jurisdictions areprescribedbytheConstitutionandinlegislation.TheCourtofAppealhas,sinceits establishment in 2014, appellate jurisdiction from decisions of the CircuitCourtandHighCourtinbothcriminalandcivilmatters.

SUPREME COURT

COURT OF APPEAL

DISTRICT COURT

CIRCUIT COURT

CIVIL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

HIGH COURT

CENTRAL CRIMINAL

COURT

SPECIAL CRIMINAL

COURT


Seat of the Supreme Court

TheseatoftheSupremeCourtislocatedintheFourCourtscomplexinDublincity.TheFourCourtshasbeentheheartoftheIrishlegalsystemsince1796.ThenameofthebuildingderivesfromthelocationofthefoursuperiorcourtswhichithousedpriortoIrishindependence,namelytheCourtofKing’sBench,theCourtofCommonPleas,theCourtofExchequerandtheCourtofChancery.Today,thefunctionoftheseCourtsarecarriedoutbytheHighCourt.

ThemaincourtroomusedbytheSupremeCourtfororalhearings is locatedintheoriginalbuilding,partlydesignedbyThomasCooleyandlaterdevelopedandcompletedbyJamesGandon.TheIrishcourtstructurewascreatedin1924followingtheestablishmentoftheIrishFreeState,SaorstatÉireann,in1922.Duringthecivilwar,intheleaduptotheestablishmentoftheIrishFreeState,theFourCourtswasthesceneofdevastatingdestructioninJune1922.DuringthereconstructionoftheFourCourtsbuilding,thecourtsmovedtoTheHonorableSocietyofKing’sInnsbuildingsonConstitutionHill,andlatertoDublinCastle,wheretheyremaineduntil1931.

NeitherofthetwocourtroomsusedbytheSupremeCourttodayexistedintheoriginalGandonbuildingoratanystageuptothesubstantialdestructionwhichoccurredduringtheCivilWar.Whilemuchofthemain buildingwas reconstructed to resemble its formprior to destruction, the areas currentlyoccupiedby theSupremeCourt courtroom, theSupremeCourtOffice (including theChief Justice’sChambers)andtheHughKennedyCourt,wasanewdesignarisingoutofthereconstructionprocess.


The Supreme Court Courtroom

TheSupremeCourtcourtroomisthemaincourtroominwhichtheCourthearscasesandpronouncesjudgment. Ingeneral, itaccommodatescompositionsof thecourt sitting inpanelsof three, fiveor,exceptionally, seven judges. As the reformed jurisdiction of the Supreme Court requires that theSupremeCourtconsidercaseshavingbeensatisfiedthatthedecisioninvolvesamatterofgeneralpublicimportance,orintheinterestofjusticeitisnecessarythattherebeanappealtotheSupremeCourt,casesarenowgenerallyheardbyapaneloffivejudgesinthemaincourtroom.

MostcasesareheardinpublicinaccordancewiththeConstitution.Thecourtroomcontainsaviewinggallerywheremembersof thepublicmayobservecourtproceedings.There isadedicatedarea formembersofthepress,JudicialAssistants,ushersandvisitingjudgesorofficialfromotherjurisdictions.

TheCourtroomhasanumberoffeaturestoassistpersonswithadisability.Thereisamechanicalrampthat enables those with restrictedmobility to access the courtroom. In addition, a loop system isinstalledwhichcanenablethosewithhearingassistivedevicestolinkinwiththeCourtroom’sspeakersystem. To signify that the SupremeCourt of Ireland is sitting, the national flag is displayed in theCourtroom.OnoccasionswhentheSupremeCourtsitsoutsideofDublin,thenationalflagisdisplayedintherespectiveCourtroomorvenuewheretheCourtissitting.

AsisthecasewithallothercourtroomsacrosstheState,theSupremeCourtCourtroomisequippedwith Digital Audio Recording (‘DAR’) facilities to audio record all court proceedings. These audiorecordingsareavailabletothemembersoftheCourtandtheirJudicialAssistants.Inaddition,wheredirectedbytheCourt,awrittentranscriptofacourtproceedingmaybepreparedbasedontheDARrecording.

Interior of the Supreme Court courtroom.


Journey of a typical Appeal

AnappealbeforetheSupremeCourtbeginsitsjourneyfollowingadecisionoftheCourtofAppeal,orininstanceswhereleaveissoughttoappealdirectly,fromtheHighCourt.ApartytoproceedingsineitherofthoseCourtswhowishestobringanappealagainsta decisionmay file an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. SinceFebruary2019,itisnowpossibleforsuchanapplicationtobefileddirectlyonline.

Thepartywishingtobringanappeal(knownatthisstageasthe‘Applicant’)mustinformthepartyontheopposingsideofthecase(knownasthe‘Respondent’)thattheyhave lodgedanapplicationforleave to appeal and theRespondent is required to file anotice settingoutwhether it opposes theapplicationforleavetoappealand,ifso,why.Inpractice,inmostcases,theRespondentopposestheapplicationforleavetoappealandsetsoutthegroundsuponwhichitissaidthattheconstitutionalthresholdhasnotbeenmetbytheApplicant.ThereareaminorityofcasesinwhichtheRespondentdoesnotopposeleavetoappealasbothpartiesexpresstheviewthatitisimportantthattheCourtprovideclarityonanissueoflaw.

Onreceivingtheapplicationforleaveto appeal and the respondent’snotice,apanelofthreejudgesoftheSupremeCourtconvenestoconsiderwhether theconstitutional thresholdforgrantingleavetoappealhasbeenmet.Inadditiontotheapplicationforleave and respondent’s notice, thepanelreviewsthewrittenjudgment(s)of the High Court and/or Court ofAppeal. Having considered theapplication, the panel prepares andissues a written determinationstating whether or not leave to beappeal has been granted. Thedetermination is then circulated totheaffectedparties.

Whilemosthearingsareconductedorallyandinpublic,considerationofapplicationsforleavetoappealgenerallytakeplace inprivate,as isspecificallyprovidedfor intheCourtofAppealAct2014,whichmakesprovisioninrelationtothereformedjurisdictionoftheSupremeCourtandtheCourtofAppeal.TheCourtmaydirectanoralhearingwhere it considers it appropriate todo so.Thisonlyhappensoccasionally. Pursuant to the constitutional requirement that justice is administered in public, theSupremeCourtpublishesitswrittendeterminationsandaccompanyingdocumentationonthewebsiteoftheCourtsServiceofIreland.

Panel of the Supreme Court considering an Application for Leave (‘AFL’) with the Registrar of the Supreme Court in attendance.


Where leavehasbeengrantedand theApplicant,whoat this stage is referred tohereafter as the‘Appellant’,filesanoticeofintentiontoproceed,theChiefJusticewillassigntheappealtoajudgeoftheSupremeCourtforcasemanagement.ThisistoensurethattheproceduralrequirementsaslaiddownintheRulesoftheSuperiorCourtsandapplicablePracticeDirectionsarecompliedwith,enablingtheappealtobeconductedinaneffectiveandefficientmanner.

Atthecasemanagementstage,theassignedjudgemayissuedirectionstopartiesinrelationtolegalauthorities,exhibitsandotherrelevantdocumentsthatthepaneloftheCourtthatwillheartheappealmayrequiretohaveaccesstoinordertoadequatelydeterminetheappeal.

Both the Appellant and the Respondentmust prepare and lodgewritten submissions, limited to adirectedwordcount,inwhichbothsidessetouttheirreasonsastowhythedecisionbeingappealedshould be reversed or upheld. As the Irish legal system is part of the common law legal tradition,decisionsoftheSuperiorCourtsofIrelandarebindingoncourtsoflowerjurisdictionbyvirtueofthedoctrineofprecedentandcaselawconstitutesanimportantsourceoflaw.Therefore,legalsubmissionsofthepartiesgenerallyrelyonpreviouscourtdecisionsinsupportoftheirrespectivearguments.

Thewrittensubmissions,togetherwithotherrelevantdocumentationproperlyputbeforetheCourt,arereviewedbyeachSupremeCourtjudgewhoispartofthepanelwhichwillbeassignedtoheartheappealbeforetheoralhearingisconducted.

Attheoralhearing,boththeAppellantandtheRespondentareallocatedaperiodoftimeinwhichtomake their respective arguments. At the endof theRespondent’s oral arguments, theAppellant isprovidedwithanopportunitytoreplytoargumentsmadebytheRespondent.Whenthishasconcluded,theSupremeCourtordinarilyreservesitsjudgment,meaningthattheCourtindicatesthatitwillnotdeliveritsdecisionthereandthen,butratherwilldeliveritsdecisionatalaterdate,followingcarefulconsiderationanddeliberationoftheargumentsmade.

Occasionally,theSupremeCourtdeliversanoraljudgmentimmediatelyfollowingthehearing,whichisknown as an ex tempore judgment. The delivery of ex tempore judgments are rare since theimplementationofthereformedjurisdictionoftheSupremeCourt.

A composition of the Supreme Court


ThecompositionoftheSupremeCourtwhich has heard the appealmeets inwhatisreferredtoasaconferenceanddeliberates.Eachjudgearrivesathisorher respectivedecision independentlyoftheothermembersoftheCourt.AstheCourtsitsinoddnumbersofthree,five or seven, a decision is arrived ateitherunanimouslyorbymajority.

Bytradition,atthefirstcaseconferenceaftertheoralhearing,themostjuniorjudgeonthepanel–that being the judgemost recently appointed in time – which has heard the casemakes the firstobservations, followed by the other judges in ascending order of seniority. This is different to thepracticeadoptedbySupremeCourtsinsomeotherjurisdictions,suchastheUnitedStatesofAmerica.

Owingtotheimportanceandthecomplexityoftheappealstobedetermined,itisoftennecessaryfortheCourttoholdsubsequentcaseconferencestodecidethecaseandtoenablethemembersoftheCourttoreachtheirindividualdecisions.

The decision reached by each Judge is formulated in written judgments (with the exception ofjudgements delivered ex tempore) which set out the reasons for either allowing or dismissing theappeal. Each judge may deliver his or her own separate judgment and a number of concurringjudgmentsmaytogetherformamajority.AjudgewhodoesnotagreewiththedecisiontakenbythemajorityoftheCourtmaydeliveradissentingjudgment.

Inrecenttimes, theCourthassometimespreparedasingle judgment, towhichallmembersof thecompositionhearinganappealhavecontributed.Asthejudgmentisnotattributedtoonesinglejudge,butrathertheCourtasawhole,it istheconventionforthepresidingJudge(thatisthemostseniorjudgeonthepanel)todeliverthejudgmentonbehalfoftheothermembersoftheCourt.

When thewritten judgment(s) is in aposition tobedelivered, theCourtwill be convenedandwillpronounceitsdecisioninpublic.ThedecisionreachedbythemajorityoftheCourtisgivenformaleffectbyanorderoftheCourt.AnycostorancillaryapplicationsaregenerallyalsoconsideredonthedeliveryofthejudgmentoftheCourt.

Oncethejudgment(s)isdelivered,arrangementswillbemadeforthedecisiontobepublishedontheCourts Service website. In some cases, owing to the complexity of the issues or where multiplejudgmentsaredelivered,bothconcurringanddissenting,anInformationNoteorStatementmayalsobepublishedwhichsummariesthe issuestheCourthadtoconsiderandasummaryofthedecisionreachedbythemajority.ThissummaryisforinformationpurposesonlyanddoesnotpurporttobeaninterpretationoftheCourt’sdecision.

A composition of the Supreme Court in conference.


Judges circulate draft judgments for consideration by other members of the Court The Court delivers its judgment and the decision reached is

determined by the majority ruling. The judgment takes legal effect in the form of a Court Order

Journey of a typical appeal

Decision made by the High Court or Court of Appeal and judgment handed down

Party may seek leave to appeal by filing an Application for Leave to Appeal

Panel of three Supreme Court judges convene to consider application for leave

Other party given opportunity to file notice setting out why leave to

appeal should not be granted. Panel issues determination setting out whether leave has been granted or not

Case management process begins – both parties will be required to follow

directions of an assigned Supreme Court judge to ensure appeal can be heard

Once appeal is ready to be heard,

a hearing date will be set

Court reserves judgment and begins its deliberations

Oral hearing in Courtroom where both parties make arguments and Court poses questions to both sides

Judges assigned to hear appeal read written submissions of both parties in advance


The reformed jurisdiction of the Supreme Court – five years on

28thOctober2019markednotonlythefive-yearanniversaryoftheestablishmentoftheCourtofAppeal–aseminalmomentwhichheraldedthemostsignificantchangetotheIrishcourtsstructureinoveracentury–butalsoafundamentalrecalibrationofthejurisdictionoftheSupremeCourtitself.

Fiveyearson,itisnolongerapttodescribethereformedjurisdictionoftheCourtas‘new’butratherasanevolvingone,anevolutiononwhichitisappropriatetoreflect.

SincetheformativedaysoftheCourt’sreformedjurisdiction,theCourthas–throughaseriesofwrittendeterminations–soughttolaydown‘waypoints’,toserveineffectasnavigationalaidstopartiesandpractitionersonhowtheCourtwoulddetermineapplicationsforleave,pursuanttotheconstitutionalthresholdaslaiddowninArticle34oftheConstitution,whichwasamendedbywayofReferendumin2013toprovidefortheestablishmentoftheCourtofAppeal.

Inawiderangeofdeterminations,theSupremeCourthasprovidedguidanceonmattersrangingfromprocedural to substantive issues. From the outset, the Supreme Court laid down amarker that itsfunctionwasnolongerthatofanappealcourt“designedtocorrectallegederrorsbythetrialcourt”.1Rather,itwastheCourtofAppealthatwasnowconferredwiththejurisdictiontocorrectanyallegederrors,asitmaydeterminetohaveoccurred.Further,theSupremeCourthasspecifiedtheparameterswithinwhichacasemustcomebeforeleavecanbegranted.

TheSupremeCourt, through itswrittendeterminations,hasstressedthat the factswhicharise inagivencase,asimportantastheymightbe,donotautomaticallyconferanadvantageorentitlementtoleavetoappealbeinggranted.Theapplicationofwell-establishedprinciplesoflawtothefactsofanindividualcasewillnotmeettheconstitutionalthreshold.

The new vista that emerged after the Thirty-third Amendment to the Constitution resulted in allparticipants in theprocess– the Judiciary,Courts Serviceand the legalprofessions–engaging inalearningcurve.

Thejourneyonthis learningcurvecontinuesand, in2018,arisingfromtheworkundertakenbytheSupremeCourtProceduresReviewCommittee,anewrevisedOrder58oftheRulesoftheSuperiorCourts,whichgovernstheconductofproceedingsintheSupremeCourt,togetherwithanewPracticeDirection,specifictotheSupremeCourt,werepreparedandcameintolegaleffectinJanuary2019.Order58,rule2(1)exemplifiestheraisond’êtreoftheongoingprocessofrefiningandenhancingthejurisdictionoftheSupremeCourt.Itrequiresthatallapplications,appealsandothermattersbeforethe Supreme Court “shall be prepared for hearing or determination in a manner which is just,expeditiousandlikelytominimisethecostsoftheproceedings.”

1Wansborov.DirectorofPublicProsecutionsandanor[2017]IESCDET115atpara.5


ThefutureevolutionofthepracticeandprocedureoftheSupremeCourtiscontingentonkeepingtwoseparatebutrelatedgoalsinmind:therequirementoftheCourttogivethecasesthatcomebeforeitthedetailedattentionthattheydeserve,whilstbearinginmindthat,importantandallassuchcasesmaybeforthedevelopmentofthe lawmoregenerallyata jurisprudential level, thecasesfirstandforemostinvolvetherightsandobligationsofindividualparties.2

‘Leapfrog’ appeals

Theterm‘leapfrogappeals’isusedcolloquiallytodescribeapplicationsinwhichleaveissoughttobringanappealdirectlytotheSupremeCourtfromtheHighCourt.Ordinarilyanappealfromadecisionofthe High Court may be appealed to the Court of Appeal. However, express provision for leapfrogappeals ismade inArticle34.5.4°of theConstitutionwhichprescribesthat, if theSupremeCourt issatisfiedthatthereareexceptionalcircumstanceswarrantingadirectappealtoit,andthatoneoftwoordinarypreconditionsforleavetoappealgenerallyaresatisfied,theSupremeCourtmaygrantleavedirectlyfromtheHighCourt.Thepreconditionsareeitherthatthedecisioninvolvesamatterofgeneralpublicimportanceand/orthatitisintheinterestsofjusticethattherebeadirectappealtoit.

Theexceptionalnatureofthe‘leapfrog’appealwasconsideredbytheSupremeCourtinoneofitsfirstwrittendeterminationsinthecaseofBarlowv.MinisterforAgriculture,FoodandFisheries3,whereitstatedthat:

“[W]herethecourtissatisfiedthatthatconstitutionalthresholdhasbeenmetthecourtwillhavetoconsiderwhether,eitherderivingfromthenatureoftheappealitselforfromexternalcircumstancessuchasurgency,itcanbesaidthatthereareexceptionalcircumstancessuchasurgency,itcanbesaidthatthereareexceptionalcircumstancesjustifyingaleapfrogappeal.Inattemptingtoreachanassessmentonthatquestionthecourtmaywellhavetoanalysetheextenttowhich,ontheonehand,theremaybeperceivedtobeadisadvantageinnotgoingthroughthedefaultrouteofafirstappealtotheCourtofAppealandbalancethatagainstanydisadvantage,whether in the context of putting the courts and the parties to unnecessarytrouble and expense or in relation to a delay in achieving an ultimate resolution of urgentproceedings,whichmightbeinvolvedbyrunningtheriskoftherebeingtwoappeals.Inthatlater context it should be acknowledged that therewill only truly be a saving of time andexpenseforboththecourtsandtheparties, if it is likely that therewillbeasecondappealirrespectiveofthedecisionoftheCourtofAppeal.”

Incasesthatgiverisetoatemporalurgency,theSupremeCourtnotedthat:

“[t]hereclearlywillbecaseswhere,inonewayoranother,aclockintherealworldisticking.In such cases, even if there may be perceived to be some merit in, or advantage to, anintermediateappeal,thebalancemayfavouradirectappealto[theSupreme]Court,preciselybecause the downside of any delay which would be caused by two appeals would bedisproportionateinthecircumstancesofthecase.”

2 Frank Clarke, The shape of things to come – the conduct of appeals in the Supreme Court after the 33rdAmendment,Carolan(ed.)JudicialPowerinIreland(InstituteofPublicAdministration,2018)3[2015]IESCDET8atpara.17.


Case management

WhilstthereformedjurisdictionbroughtaboutchangestothepracticeandprocedureoftheCourt,itistheembeddingofthecasemanagementprocessthatstandsoutasoneofthedefiningchangestotheworkpracticeoftheCourt.Theassignmentofadedicatedcasemanagementjudgederivesmultiplebenefits and efficiencies for all participants in the process. For parties and their respective legalrepresentatives, for themembers of the Court that will ultimately hear the appeal, having a casemanagementjudgeinplacefacilitatesamuchmorestreamlinedandeffectiveconductofappeals.

CasemanagementenablesadialoguebetweentherespectivepartiestoanappealandtheCourt inrespectofpurelyproceduralmattersthat,whilsttechnicalinnature,havethepotentialtoensurethattheoralhearingoftheappealisconductedwithgreaterefficiency.ProvisionismadeintheCourtofAppeal Act 2014 and Order 58 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986, as amended, for theappointmentofacasemanagementjudge,toensurethatpartiesareincompliancewiththeapplicablerulesofcourtandstatutorypracticedirection.

BoththerelevantRulesofCourtandthestatutoryPracticeDirectionmakespecificreferencetosuchacasemanagementjudgeandgivespowerstothatjudgetoensuretheorderlyprogressionofthecase.Inaddition,itprovidesfortheearlyfocusbyallconcernedonthepreciselegalargumentstobemade.IthasbeenstressedinanumberofrulingsandstatementsbytheCourtthat it isexpectedthatthepartieswillengagewitheachother’swrittensubmissionssothattherecanbeareadyidentificationwellinadvanceofthehearingofanyissuesorcontentionsbetweenthepartiesastothefactsand/orlaw.

WhenalloftheothermembersoftheCourtonthepanelforaparticularcaseconvenetohearthecaseatapre-hearingconference,thecasemanagementJudgeappraiseshisorherjudicialcolleaguesofthepracticalitiesofhowtheoralhearingmightbeconducted,includingthetimeallottedtoeachsideandthe‘interruptionfree’period(colloquiallyreferredtoasathe‘noflyzone’)thatisaffordedtoCounselforeachside,wherebyitisagreedinadvancethatadefinedperiodoftheiropeningoralargumentwillbemadewithoutinterruptionfrommembersoftheCourt.

Onceleavehasbeengranted,adateisfixedforthefirstcasemanagementhearing.TheSupremeCourtOfficecommunicatesby letterwithboth theAppellantand theRespondent,advising themofwhatactionsarerequiredtobeundertakeninadvanceofthefirstcasemanagementhearing,drawingthepartiesattentiontoPracticeDirectionSC19–ConductofProceedingsintheSupremeCourt.

Partiesareadvisedinrelationtothenatureofthepapersthatmustbefiledinadvanceofthefirstcasemanagement hearing. In granting leave to appeal the Supreme Court, in its written determinationordinarilysetsouttheissuesonwhichleavehasbeengrantedorthegroundsofappealpermittedtobeadvanced.However,insomeinstances,thewrittendetermination(intheparagraphgrantingleave)mayconferadiscretiononthecasemanagementjudgeto‘refine’or‘modify’theissues/groundsinacasemanagement.

Inadvanceofthefirstcasemanagementhearing,thecasemanagementJudgeandassignedRegistrarliaisewithoneanotherandanyissuesflaggedintermsofpotentialnon-compliancewiththePracticeDirection/RulesofCourtarebroughttotheJudge’sattention.Whenthecasemanagement judge issatisfiedthatpartieshaveadheredtotheproceduralrequirementsassetoutinthePracticeDirection,he/shewillindicatethatthecasecanbelistedforhearingandtheChiefJusticewillsubsequentlyfixahearingdate.


Current members of the Supreme Court of Ireland

Back row (Left to Right): Ms. Justice Marie Baker, Ms. Justice Iseult O’Malley, Ms. Justice Elizabeth Dunne, Mr. Justice John MacMenamin, Mr. Justice Peter Charleton, Ms. Justice Mary Irvine.

Front row (Left to Right): Mr. Justice Donal O’Donnell, Mr. Justice George Birmingham, Mr. Justice Frank Clarke, Mr. Justice Peter Kelly, Mr. Justice William M. McKechnie.

Members of the Supreme Court

TheSupremeCourtiscurrentlycomposedoftheChiefJustice,whoisPresidentoftheCourt,andeightordinaryjudges.Inaddition,thePresidentoftheCourtofAppealandthePresidentoftheHighCourtareexofficio,meaningbyvirtueoftheiroffice,membersoftheSupremeCourt.LegislationprovidesthattheSupremeCourtmayhaveuptotenmembers-theChiefJusticeandnineordinarymembers.During2019,thereweretwoappointmentstotheCourt,fillingvacanciesthatarosein2017and2019.Attheendof2019,therewasonevacancyontheCourt.

AppealsarenormallyheardanddeterminedbyfivejudgesoftheCourtunlesstheChiefJusticedirectsthatanyappealorothermatter(apartfrommattersrelatingtotheConstitution)shouldbeheardanddetermined by three judges. Since the establishment of the Court of Appeal, it is never three forsubstantiveappealsotherthanArticle64returns.Inexceptionalcases,theSupremeCourtmaysitasacompositionofsevenjudges.IninstanceswheretheSupremeCourtisexercisingitsoriginaljurisdictionitsits,ataminimum,asapaneloffivejudges.

Applications for leave to appeal are considered and determined by a panel of three judges of theSupremeCourt.TheChief Justiceoranordinary judgeof theSupremeCourtmay sit alone tohearcertaininterlocutoryandproceduralapplications.Butthisdoesnotnormallyhappensothatanyissuesofcontroversyarenormallydecidedbyapanelofat leastthreejudges.Asamatterofpractice,theChiefJusticeappointsajudgeoftheCourttocasemanageappealsforwhichleavetoappealhasbeengranted.


Mr. Justice Frank Clarke Chief Justice

Mr.JusticeFrankClarkewasappointedthe12thChiefJusticeofIrelandonthe28thJuly,2017,bythePresidentofIreland,MichaelD.Higgins.ChiefJusticeClarkewasborninDublinandeducatedatDrimnaghCastleCBS,UniversityCollegeDublin(B.A.inMathematicsandEconomics),andTheHonorableSocietyofKing’sInns(B.L.).

Havingcompletedhis legalstudies,hewascalledtotheBar in1973andtothe InnerBar in1985.Hepracticedmainly in the commercial andpublic law fields (including constitutional law) andwas twiceappointedbytheSupremeCourtascounseltopresentargumentonreferencesofBillstotheSupremeCourt by the President under Article 26 of the Constitution. He also acted as counsel to the PublicAccountsCommitteeonitsinquiryintotheDIRTtaxissueandwasexternalcounseltotheCommissiontoInquiryintoChildAbuse(LaffoyandRyanCommissions).In1994,Mr.JusticeClarkebecameaBencherofthe Honorable Society of King’s Inns. He was elected as an honorary member of the Canadian BarAssociationin1994,andadmittedasanhonorarymemberoftheAustralianBarAssociationin2002.In2018,hewasmadeanhonoraryBencherofTheHonorableSocietyoftheMiddleTemple.

WhileattheBar,Mr.JusticeClarkeservedformanyyearsontheBarCouncilincludingforatermoftwoyears(1993-1995)asitsChair.HealsoservedasChairoftheCouncilofKing'sInnsfrom1999until2004.HewasamemberoftheCounciloftheInternationalBarAssociationfrom1997to2004,servingasco-Chair of the Forum for Barristers and Advocates (the international representative body for theindependentreferralbars)from1998to2002.Mr. Justice Clarkewas appointed a judge of theHigh Court in 2004 andwasmainly assigned to theCommerciallistandalsopresidedovertheestablishmentoftheChanceryandNon-JuryListinCork.Whilea judge of the High Court, he was chairman of the Referendum Commission on the Twenty-eighthAmendmentoftheConstitution(LisbonTreatyII)in2009.In2012,Mr.JusticeClarkewasappointedasajudgeoftheSupremeCourt.Since2013,hehasbeenarepresentative of the Supreme Court on the Association of Supreme Administrative Courts of theEuropeanUnion(ACA-Europe).OnhisappointmentasChiefJustice,hebecameaMemberoftheNetworkofthePresidentsoftheSupremeJudicialCourtsoftheEuropeanUnionandwaselectedamemberoftheBoardofthatNetwork in2018.Mr.JusticeClarkehassinceMarch2018beenamemberofthepanelprovidedforinArticle255oftheTreatyontheFunctioningoftheEuropeanUnion,thefunctionofwhichistoprovideanopiniononthesuitabilityofpersonsforappointmentasJudgeandAdvocateGeneraloftheCourtofJusticeandGeneralCourtoftheEuropeanUnion.

Intheacademicfield,Mr.JusticeClarkewasaprofessoratKing'sInnsfrom1978to1985andhasbeenJudge-in-ResidenceatGriffithCollegeDublinfrom2010todate.HewasappointedAdjunctProfessorintheLawSchoolinTrinityCollege,DublininSeptember2012,andAdjunctProfessorofUniversityCollegeCorkin2013.HewasawardedtheGriffithCollegeDistinguishedFellowshipAwardin2017.


The Role of the Chief Justice TheChiefJusticeofIrelandisthePresidentoftheSupremeCourtandthetitularheadoftheJudiciary,thejudicialarmofgovernment.

President of the Supreme Court and judicial functions TheChiefJusticeisresponsibleforthemanagementofallaspectsoftheCourtincludingthelistingofcasesinconjunctionwiththeRegistraroftheSupremeCourtandassignmentofcasestoJudges.TheChief Justice regularly sits on cases which come before the Court and invariably presides in casesconcerning the constitutionality of statutes, the reference of a Bill to the Supreme Court by thePresidentpursuanttoArticle26oftheConstitutionandothercasesofimportance.TheChiefJusticeisexofficioamemberofboththeHighCourtandtheCourtofAppeal.

Presidential Commission The Constitution confers on the Chief Justice specific additional functions. Under Article 14 of theConstitution,theChiefJusticeisthefirstmemberofthePresidentialCommission,whichexercisesthepowers and functionsof thePresidentof Ireland inhis or her absence. Theothermembersof thePresidentialCommissionaretheCeannComhairle(ChairmanofDáilÉireann,thechamberofdeputies)andtheChairmanofSeanadÉireann (theSenate). Ifanyof theabovepersons isunable toact, thePresident of the Court of Appeal, the Leas (Deputy) Ceann Comhairle and the Leas (Deputy)Cathaoirleach,respectively,canactasmembersintheirplace.TheChiefJusticeexercisedhisfunctionsonthePresidentialCommissionthroughout2019andsignedinto law a number of Bills, such as the Citizens’ Assemblies Bill 2019, Courts (Establishment andConstitution)(Amendment)Bill2019,JudicialCouncilBill2017andtheCervicalCheckTribunalBill2019.

Council of State UnderArticle31oftheConstitution,theChiefJusticeisamemberoftheCouncilofState,abodywhichaidsandcounselsthePresidentofIrelandintheexerciseofsuchofhisorherpowersasareexercisableundertheConstitutionafterconsultationwiththeCouncilofState.

Other responsibilities

InadditiontothejudicialdutiesandadministrativeresponsibilitiesassociatedwiththeSupremeCourtitself, the Chief Justice has a range of other administrative responsibilities. For example, the ChiefJusticechairstheBoardoftheCourtsServiceofIreland,theJudicialAppointmentsAdvisoryBoard,theCommitteeforJudicialStudiesandtheSuperiorCourtsRulesCommittee.

TheChiefJusticeisalsochairoftheJudicialCouncil,whichwasestablishedonthe17thDecember2019.


Appointments

Commissioner for Oaths ACommissionerforOathsisapersonwhoisauthorisedtoverifyaffidavits,statutorydeclarationsandotherlegaldocuments.Affidavitsarestatementsmadeinwritingandonoath.PersonswishingtobeappointedasaCommissionerforOathsaremadebypetitiontotheChiefJusticesittinginopenCourt.

Admittance of barristers TheChiefJusticecallstotheBarpersonsadmittedtothedegreeofBarrister-at-LawbytheBenchersofTheHonorableSocietyofKing’sInns.ItistheCalltotheBarbytheChiefJusticewhichpermitsbarristerstopractisebeforetheCourtsofIreland.TheCalltotheBarisaformalceremonyentitledthe‘CalltotheOuterBar’intheSupremeCourtatwhichtheChiefJustice,sittingwithothermembersoftheCourt,admitsthenewbarristerstopractiseintheCourtsofIreland.OncecalledtotheBar,thebarristersarereferredtoasjuniorcounsel.King’sInnsadmitstothedegreeofBarrister-at-Lawpersonswhoqualifybyfollowingitsprofessionalcourse,barristersfromjurisdictionswithwhomtherearereciprocalarrangements(atpresentonlywithNorthern Ireland) and qualified lawyers practising in other jurisdictions whose qualifications arerecognisedandwhosatisfytheotherrequirementsofKing'sInnsTheGovernmentrecognisesthedesirabilityofmaintaining,inthepublicinterest,an‘InnerBar’whichcan providewith exceptional skill a wide range of specialist advice and advocacy in all courts andtribunalsinareasofnational,Europeanandinternationallaw.TheGovernment,atitsdiscretion,grantsPatentsofPrecedenceattheBarontherecommendationofanAdvisoryCommitteetosuitablepersonswithatleasttenyears’experienceofpractiseattheOuterBar.FollowingreceiptbysuccessfulapplicantsofPatentsofPrecedencefromtheGovernment,theChiefJusticecallsthoseindividualstotheInnerBarofIreland.BarristerscalledtotheInnerBarofIrelandarereferredtoasSeniorCounselandusethesuffixS.C.aftertheirname.TheprocessofbeingcalledtotheInnerBariscolloquiallyreferredtoas‘takingsilk’,whichderivesfromtheblacksilkrobeswornbySeniorCounsel.

Notaries Public ANotaryPublicisanofficerwhoservesthepublicinnon-contentiousmattersusuallyconcernedwithforeignorinternationalbusiness.Notariescertifytheexecutionintheirpresenceofadeed,acontractorotherwriting.TheChiefJusticeappointsqualifiedpersonsasnotariesareappointedbytheChiefJustice.TheprocessofappointmentinvolvesaformalPetitiontotheChiefJusticeinopenCourt.TheFacultyofNotariesPublic,whichisthebodyresponsiblefortheadvancementandregulationofnotariesandtheLawSocietyofIreland,theeducational,representativeandregulatorybodyofthesolicitors'professionIreland,arenoticepartiestonotaryapplications.


Declarations of newly appointed judges

The Chief Justice receives the declaration sworn by persons who are appointed to judicial officepursuanttoArticle34.6oftheConstitutionthisincludesjudgeswhoareappointedajudgeofahighercourtandwhotherebyrelinquishthejudicialofficepreviouslyheld.In2019,theChiefJusticereceivedthejudicialdeclarationfrom15judgesappointedtojudicialofficeforthefirsttime.TheseincludedfivejudgesoftheDistrictCourt,sevenjudgesoftheHighCourtandthreejudgesoftheCourtofAppeal.Inaddition,declarationsweremadebyninejudgeswhowereappointedtoahighercourt,includingtwoCircuitCourtjudges,fiveCourtofAppealjudgesandtwoSupremeCourtjudges.AllsuchdeclarationsarereceivedintheSupremeCourt.

Statement to Mark the Opening of the 2019/2020 Legal Year

In2019,theChiefJusticecontinuedthepracticeheadoptedwhenappointedin2017bydeliveringanannualpublicstatementtomarktheopeningofthelegalyearinIrelandinOctober.Inhisstatement,theChiefJusticenotedthat,inmanyareasofreform,theplanningstagewasnowcomplete,anditwastimetoimplementanumberofplansacrossarangeofareasofsignificancetotheJudiciaryandtotheadministrationofJustice.Heemphasisedthefollowingkeyprioritiesforthe2019-2020legalyear:

• WorkingtowardstheestablishmentoftheJudicialCouncil,whichwassubsequentlyestablishedonthe17thDecember2019.TheChief Justiceoutlinedthesignificantworkwhichhadbeencarried out and was ongoing to ensure the establishment of the Judicial Council andemphasisedtheimportanceofthedetail inestablishingtheCouncilanditsCommitteesandtheneedtoensurethatitwouldhavetheresourcestocarryoutitsstatutoryrolewithinthetimeframeswhichtheJudicialCouncillegislationspecifies;

• Seekingtoensurethatcourtprocessesandthemethodsbywhichpeoplecanaccessthemarefitforpurposeinthedigitalage.TheChiefJusticereferredtoanumberofprojectsputinplacebytheCourtsServiceinrecentyears,suchasane-licensingproject,onlinefilingininsolvencycasesande-filingofapplicationsforleavetoappealtotheSupremeCourt.However,theChiefJustice pointed to themajor investment which would be required for a widespreadmovetowardsdigitalmanagementofmost,ifnotall,courtproceedings.

• Theneedforaconsiderationof judicialnumbersagainstthebackdropof IrelandhavingthelowestnumberofjudgesperheadofpopulationinEuropeandthepotentialforanin-depthconsiderationofaradicalconsiderationofthestructureoftheIrishcourtssystem.


International Engagement

AnotheraspectoftheroleoftheChiefJusticeistorepresentthe interests of the Supreme Court, the Judiciary and thelegalsystemofIrelandatinternationallevel.

In2019,theChiefJusticeattendedanddeliveredremarksatevents in Washington as part of an initiative of theGovernment and legal community of Ireland aimed atpromoting Ireland as a leading centre globally forinternationallegalservices’inthewakeofBrexit.

OtherinternationaleventswhichtheChiefJusticeattendedincluded: the30thAnniversaryof theGeneralCourtof theCourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanUnioninLuxembourg,wherehedeliveredremarkson‘DigitalTechnologyandtheQualityofJudicialDecisions’,aconferenceon‘TheFutureoftheRuleofLaw’hostedbytheSupremeCourtofPolandinWarsaw;aconferenceofHeadsofSupremeCourtsofCouncilofEuropeMemberStateshostedbytheSupremeCourt,ConstitutionalCouncilandCouncilofStateofFranceontheoccasionoftheFrench Presidency of the Committee of Ministers of theCouncilofEuropeinParis;andajudicialLeadershipForumhostedbytheLordPresidentof theCourtofSession,LordCarlowayinScotland.

The Chief Justice also met on severaloccasionswithfellowmembersofthepanelprovided for in Article 255 of the TFEU inorder to give opinions on candidates'suitabilitytoperformthedutiesofJudgeandAdvocate-GeneraloftheCourtofJusticeandtheGeneralCourt.

During 2019, a new website of the Article255committeewaslaunched.

He also engaged with courts in otherjurisdictions in the context of internationalmeetings and organisations in which theCourt is involved, includingworkassociatedwith his membership of the Board of theNetwork of the Presidents of the SupremeJudicialCourtsoftheEuropeanUnionandinthecontextoftheactivatesofACA-EuropeasoutlinedinPart4ofthisreport.

Attorney General Seámus Woulfe S.C., Chief Justice Frank Clarke, and Micheal P. O’Higgins, Chair of the Bar of Ireland at an event in the Embassy of Ireland, Washington D.C. to promote the Brexit Legal Services initiative.

Extract from the new website of the Article 255 committee which was launched in 2019.


Mr. Justice Donal O’Donnell

Mr.JusticeDonalO’DonnellwasborninBelfastandeducatedatSt.Mary’sC.B.S.,UniversityCollegeDublin(B.C.L.),TheHonorableSocietyofKing’sInns(B.L.),andtheUniversityofVirginia(LL.M.).Mr.JusticeO’DonnellwascalledtotheBarofIrelandin1982,commencedpracticein1983andwascalled to theBarofNorthern Ireland in1989. In1995,hewasappointedSeniorCounselandhaspractisedinalltheCourtsofIreland,intheCourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanUnion(C.J.E.U.)andtheEuropeanCourtofHumanRights(E.Ct.H.R.).

HewasamemberoftheLawReformCommissionfrom2005to2012.HehasdeliveredtheJohnM.Kelly Memorial Lecture (U.C.D.), the Brian Walsh Lecture (I.S.E.L.), the Brian Lenihan MemorialLecture(T.C.D.)theDanBinchyLecture(BurrenLawSchool)andthekeynoteaddressataconferencein theUniversityof Limerick tomark the80thanniversaryof theConstitution.HehaspublishedarticlesonavarietyoflegaltopicsintheNorthernIrelandLegalQuarterly,TheIrishJurist,theDublinUniversityLawJournal,theIrishJudicialStudiesJournal,andhascontributedtovolumesofessayson legal issues. He was a director of Our Lady's Hospice from 2009 to 2014 and is the currentchairman of the Judges’ Library Committee and amember of the Incorporated Council for LawReportingandoftheCounciloftheIrishLegalHistorySociety.

In2009,hebecameaBencheroftheHonorableSocietyofKing’sInns.

Mr.JusticeO’DonnellwasappointedtotheSupremeCourtin2010.

Hisfather,LordJusticeTurloughO'Donnell,wasajudgeofboththeHighCourtandCourtofAppealinNorthernIrelandandwaslateramemberoftheIrishLawReformCommission.


Mr. Justice William M. McKechnie

Mr.JusticeWilliamMcKechniewasappointedtotheSupremeCourtinJune,2010.Hewaseducatedat PresentationBrothersCollegeandalsoUniversityCollegeCork, fromwhichhegraduatedin1971,UniversityCollegeDublin,andTheHonorableSocietyofKing’sInns,Dublin.HeholdsaMastersDegreeinEuropeanLaw.HewascalledtotheBarin1971,andadmittedtotheInnerBarin1987.Asabarristerhepractisedintheareaofcommercial,chanceryandlocalauthoritylawandhadaspecialinterestinmedicalnegligence.HeheldanumberofseniorpositionsintheBarCouncilof IrelandforseveralyearsandwaselectedChairmanin1999,andre-electedin2000.HeisaBencherofTheHonorableSocietyofKing’sInns.HewasappointedaHighCourt Judge in2000andtookchargeofthecompetition list from2004to2010. As such, he presided over all competition cases, both civil and criminal. Hemade the firstDeclarationofIncompatibilityundertheEuropeanConventiononHumanRightsAct2003,inthecaseofFoyv.AntArdChláraitheoir,whichwasinstrumentalinbringingaboutsignificantchangesinthatareaoflaw.Mr.JusticeMcKechniewasChairmanoftheValuationTribunalfrom1995to2000,andwaspreviouslytheChairpersonoftheEditorialBoardoftheJudicialStudiesInstituteJournal.HehasbeenamemberoftheCourtsServicesBoardforseveralyears,aswellastheSuperiorCourtsRulesMakingCommittee.HeisamemberoftheExecutiveCounciloftheAssociationofJudgesofIrelandandisheavilyinvolvedwiththeEuropeanLawInstitute.In 2010 he was elected President of the Association of European Competition Law Judges, whichrepresentseachofthe27MemberStatesoftheEuropeanUnion,aswellasjudgesfromtheCourtofJusticeandtheGeneralCourtoftheEuropeanUnion,andfromtheEFTACourt.HeisthethirdPresidentoftheAssociationfollowingSirChristopherBellamyandDr.JoachimBornkamm.Hehaswrittenseveralpapers,participatedinandpresidedovermanyconferencesanddeliveredtheFourthAnnualC.C.J.H.R.LectureatU.C.C.on4thMarch,2010.


Mr. Justice John MacMenamin

Mr.JusticeJohnMacMenaminwasappointedtotheSupremeCourtin2012.HewasborninDublin,andeducatedatTerenureCollege,UniversityCollegeDublin,(B.A.(History),andTheHonorableSocietyofKingsInns(B.L.). AsastudenthewasaCouncilMemberoftheFreeLegalAdviceCentre,andwasinvolvedinrunningaFreeLegalAdviceCentreinBallyfermot.Mr.JusticeMacMenaminwascalledtotheBarof Ireland in1975.Hewascalledtothe InnerBar in1991,andengagedfirstingeneralpractice,beforethenspecialisinginjudicialreview,administrativelawanddefamation.HeactedforanumberofclientsbeforetheFlood/MahonTribunalofInquiry,andfortheDepartmentofHealthandmembersofthethenCabinet,includingtheTaoiseach,beforetheRyanTribunal.HewaslegalassessortotheFitnesstoPractiseCommitteeoftheMedicalCouncilfortenyears.Havingpreviouslyservedfourtermsasanordinarymember,hewaselectedChairmanoftheBarCouncilin1997,servinginthatofficeupto1999.HewasaDirectoroftheV.H.I.from1995to1997.Mr.JusticeMacMenaminwasappointedtotheHighCourtin2004.Therehedealtprimarilywithjudicialreviewmatters;caseswithaconstitutionalorhumanrightsdimension;therightsofasylumseekers;childreninneedofspecialcare;thetreatmentofprisoners;andsingleparents.HewasinchargeoftheHighCourtMinorsListforthreeyears.HewasappointedamemberoftheSpecialCriminalCourt in2009.Hewasalso,foraperiodofthreeyears,Ireland’srepresentativeontheC.C.J.E.,theConsultativeCouncilofEuropeanJudges,anadvisorycommitteetotheCouncilofMinisteroftheCouncilofEurope.Mr.JusticeMacMenaminhaswrittenandlecturedonarangeoflegalsubjects.Hedeliveredthe2014NationalUniversityofIrelandGarrettFitzgeraldLectureonthefutureoftheEuropeanUnion.Hehaslectured in St. Louis University School of Law, and led a course of lectures on comparativeconstitutionalismatNALSAR,TheNationalAcademyofLegalStudies&ResearchatHyderabad,India.HeisanAdjunctProfessoratMaynoothUniversity.In1998hewaselectedaBencheroftheHonorableSocietyofKingsInns.In2019,Mr.JusticeMacMenaminwasappointedasaJudge-in-ResidenceatDublinCityUniversity.


Ms. Justice Elizabeth Dunne

Ms.JusticeElizabethDunnewasappointedtotheSupremeCourtin2013.Ms. JusticeDunnewasborn inRoscommonandeducatedatUniversityCollegeDublin(B.C.L.),andTheHonorableSocietyofKing’sInns(B.L.).Ms.JusticeDunnewascalledtotheBarofIrelandin1977.Duringherpractice,Ms.JusticeDunnewaselectedtotheBarCouncil.Ms.JusticeDunnewasappointedasajudgeoftheCircuitCourtin1996andwassubsequentlyappointedtotheHighCourtin2004.SheservedasamemberoftheEducationCommitteeoftheHonorableSocietyoftheKing’sInnsandsubsequentlyservedasChairofthatCommitteeforanumberofyears.In2004,Ms.JusticeDunnebecameaBencheroftheHonorableSocietyofKing’sInns.In2013,Ms.JusticeDunnewasappointedastheChairoftheReferendumCommissionthatwasestablishedinadvanceoftheReferendumstoestablishtheCourtofAppealandabolishSeanadÉireann.Ms.JusticeDunneiscurrentlythecorrespondentjudgefortheSupremeCourtofIrelandonACA-Europe.ACA-EuropeisanEuropeanassociationcomposedoftheCourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanUnion and the Councils of State or the Supreme administrative jurisdictions of each of themembersoftheEuropeanUnion.


Mr. Justice Peter Charleton

Mr.JusticePeterCharletonwasappointedtotheSupremeCourtin2014.Mr. Justice Charleton was born in Dublin and educated at Trinity College Dublin and TheHonorableSocietyofKing’sInns.HelecturedinTrinityCollegeDublinfrom1986to1988incriminallawandinTheHonorableSocietyofKing'sInnsintortlawfrom1982to1984.Mr.JusticeCharletonwascalledtotheBarofIrelandin1979,In1995,hewascalledtotheInnerBar.From2002 tohisappointment to theHighCourt in2006hewascounsel to theMorris Tribunal; a statutory enquiry which looked into certain misconduct in An GardaSíochána.IntheHighCourthewasassignedprincipallytothecommerciallist.FromFebruary2017toJune2018hewastheChairmanoftheTribunalofInquiryintoprotecteddisclosuresmade under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 and certain other matters. The tribunalpublishedtwosubstantivereportsontheissuesbeforeit,thelastinOctober2018.Hehaspublishedonintellectualproperty,criminallaw,torts,constitutionallawandexecutivepower in journals, including theMaastricht JournalofEuropeanandComparativeLaw, theInternationalJournalofLawandtheFamily,theYearbookoftheInternationalCommissionofJurists,IntellectualPropertyLawandPolicy,theJournalofCriminalLaw,theBarReview,theJudicial Studies Institute Journal, the Irish LawTimes, theGazette of the Incorporated LawSocietyofIrelandandtheIrishCriminalLawJournal.Inaddition,heisAdjunctProfessoratNUIGalway.Mr.JusticeCharletonistheauthorof:

- ControlledDrugsandtheCriminalLaw(AnClóLiúir,1986)- OffencesAgainstthePerson(RoundHallPress,1992)- Criminallaw:CasesandMaterials(Butterworth,1992)- IrishCriminalLaw(Butterworth,1999,withMcDermottandBolger

and- LiesinaMirror:AnEssayonEvilandDeceit(BlackhallPublishing,2006)

Mr.JusticeCharletonwasafoundermemberoftheRTÉPhilharmonicChoirandwaschairmanoftheNationalArchivesAdvisoryCouncilfrom2011to2016.HeistheIrishrepresentativeontheColloqueFranco-Brittanique-Irlandais.


Ms. Justice Iseult O’Malley

Ms.JusticeIseultO’MalleywasappointedtotheSupremeCourtin2015.Ms.JusticeO’MalleywasborninDublinandeducatedatTrinityCollege,Dublin,andTheHonorableSocietyofKing’sInns(B.L.).Ms.JusticeO’MalleywascalledtotheBarofIrelandin1987.In2007,shewascalledtotheInnerBar.Shepractisedat theBar for twenty-fiveyears,mainly incriminal law,andalsohadexperience injudicialreview,extradition,immigration,andhousinglaw.ShewasaDirectoroftheFreeLegalAdviceCentres(FLAC)from1985to2012andwasChairpersonoftheorganisationforthreeyears.In2012,Ms.JusticeO’MalleywasappointedtotheHighCourt.SheisaformerChairpersonoftheRefugeeAgencyandaformermemberoftheEmploymentAppealsTribunalfrom1995to1998andtheHepatitisC.CompensationTribunalfrom1995to1999.In2004,shereceivedanE.S.B./RehabPersonoftheYearAwardforherworkwithF.L.A.C.In2012,Ms.JusticeO’MalleybecameaBencheroftheHonorableSocietyofKing’sInns.


Ms. Justice Mary Irvine

Ms.JusticeMaryIrvinewasappointedtotheSupremeCourtinMay2019.

Ms.JusticeIrvinewasborninDublinandeducatedattheconventoftheSacredHeart,MountAnville,UniversityCollegeDublinand theHonourable SocietyofKings Inns. Shewas called to theBarofIreland in 1978 and to the Inner Bar in 1996. As amember of the Inner Bar,Ms. Justice IrvinespecialisedinmedicallawandwasthelegalassessortotheFitnesstoPractiseCommitteesofboththeMedicalCouncilandAnBordAltranais.

WhileinpracticeattheBarMs.JusticeIrvinewaselectedtotheBarCouncilandservedasSecretaryoftheCouncil.In2004shewaselectedaBencheroftheHonourableSocietyofKingsInns.

MsJusticeIrvinewasappointedasajudgetheHighCourtin2007.AsajudgeoftheHighCourt,shewas in charge of the Personal Injuries List from 2009 to 2014 and was also responsible for themanagementanddeterminationofallGardaCompensationclaims.FollowingtheretirementofMrJusticeJohnQuirke,shechairedtheWorkingGrouponMedicalNegligenceandPeriodicPaymentsestablishedbythePresidentoftheHighCourtin2010toexaminethesystemwithintheCourtsforthemanagementof claims fordamagesarisingoutofallegedmedicalnegligenceand to identifyshortcomingsinthatsystem.

Onitsestablishmentin2014,MsJusticeIrvinewasappointedaJudgeoftheCourtofAppeal.

In2018,shewasappointedtochairtheCervicalCheckTribunalestablishedbyGovernmenttohearanddetermineclaimsmadeoutsidethecourtsprocessarisingfromallegedactsofnegligenceonthepartofCervicalCheckasprovidedforintheCervicalTribunalAct2019.


Ms. Justice Marie Baker

Ms.JusticeMarieBakerwasappointedtotheSupremeCourtinDecember2019.ShewasborninCoWicklowbutlivedformostofherchildhoodinCountyCorkandwaseducatedatStMary’sHighSchool,Midleton,CountyCork,UniversityCollegeCork(M.A.(Philosophy)andB.C.L.)andTheHonorableSocietyofKing’sInns(B.L.).Ms.JusticeBakerwascalledtotheBarin1984andwascalledtotheInnerBarin2004.ShepracticedintheCorkandMunstercircuits.Herprimarypracticesareasincludedlandlawandconveyancing,generalchancery,familylaw,andcommerciallaw.Sheisanaccreditedmediator.Ms.JusticeBakerhaspreviouslylecturedoncontractandcommerciallawinDublinCityUniversity(formerlyknownastheNationalInstituteofHigherEducation).In2014,shewasappointedasapart-timeCommissioneroftheLawReformCommission.Shewasamemberoftheadvisorystudygrouponpre-nuptialagreementswhichreportedtoGovernmentinApril2007.In2014,shewasappointedaJudgeoftheHighCourtandwasassignedtotheNon-JuryandJudicialReviewLists.Shewasthejudge-in-chargeofthePersonalInsolvencyListandtheNon-ContentiousProbateListfrom2014tothetimeofherappointmenttotheCourtofAppealInJune2018,Ms.JusticeBakerwasappointedtotheCourtofAppeal.UponitscomingintoeffectinMay2018,Ms.JusticeBakerwasappointedastheassignedJudgeforthepurposesoftheapplicationoftheDataProtectionAct2018inrespectofthesupervisionofdataprocessingoperationsofthecourtswhenactingintheirjudicialcapacity.


Ex Officio member Mr. Justice George Birmingham President of the Court of Appeal

Mr.JusticeGeorgeBirminghamwasappointedPresidentoftheCourtofAppealin2018.PresidentBirminghamwasborninDublinandeducatedatSt.Paul’sCollege,TrinityCollege,DublinandTheHonorableSocietyofKing’sInns(B.L.).PresidentBirminghamwascalledtotheBarofIrelandin1976.In1999,hewascalledtotheInnerBar.In2007,hewasappointedasaJudgeoftheHighCourtandin2014,uponitsestablishment,wasappointedasaJudgeoftheCourtofAppeal.In2006,hewaselectedaBencheroftheHonorableSocietyofKing’sInns.From 1981 to 1989, hewas amember of Dáil Éireann and served as aMinister of State of theGovernmentofthedayfrom1982to1987.In2002,asaSeniorCounsel,PresidentBirminghamwasrequestedbytheDepartmentofHealthtoconductapreliminaryinvestigationintoallegationsofhistoricalclericalchildsexabuseintheRomanCatholicDioceseofFerns.In 2006, President Birmingham was the sole member of a Commission of Investigation set uppursuanttotheCommissionsofInvestigationAct2004inrelationtothelateDeanLyons.


Ex officio member

Mr. Justice Peter Kelly President of the High Court

Mr.JusticePeterKellywasappointedPresidentoftheHighCourtin2015.Mr. JusticePeterKellywasborn inDublinandeducatedatO'Connell’sSchool,UniversityCollegeDublin,andTheHonorableSocietyofKing’sInns(B.L.).PresidentKellywascalledtotheBarofIrelandin1973,commencingpracticein1975.HewascalledtotheBarofEnglandandWalesin1981andtheBarofNorthernIrelandin1983.In1986hewascalledtotheInnerBar.HewasappointedasaJudgeoftheHighCourtin1996andwasthejudge-in-chargeoftheChanceryListfrom1997to1999,theJudicialReviewListfrom1999to2003andwasheadoftheCommercialCourtsinceitsinceptionin2004.Uponitsestablishmentin2014,hewasappointedasaJudgeoftheCourtofAppeal.In1996,PresidentKellybecameaBencheroftheHonorableSocietyofKing’sInns.In2014hewaselectedaBencherofMiddleTemple.Inaddition,PresidentKellyisamemberoftheCounciloftheRoyalCollegeofSurgeonsinIreland,andisalsoanAdjunctProfessorofLawatMaynoothUniversityPresidentKellyisalsoaPatronoftheMedicoLegalSocietyofIreland


Retirement and Appointments

InMay2019,Ms.JusticeMaryFinlayGeogheganretired from the Supreme Court after anillustrious judicial career spanning 17 yearsacrossallthreecourtsthatmakeuptheSuperiorCourts.

Speakingathervaledictoryceremony,theChiefJustice,Mr.JusticeFrankClarke,notedthatMs.Justice Finlay Geoghegan was meticulous andfirminherroleasa judge,butalwaysbroughtanoverlayof lightnessandadeepunderlayofhumanity. These qualities, the Chief Justicenoted,werealsobrought tobear in themanyother areas of public contribution that Ms.JusticeFinlayGeogheganmade,beitinherroleas a member of the Constitutional ReviewGroup, Chair of the ReferendumCommissiononthe31stAmendmentoftheConstitutioninrelationtotherightsofchildren,andalsoasamemberoftheBoardoftheMaterHospital.

HerformercolleaguesontheCourtwishherahappyandrewardingretirement.

InMay2019,Ms.JusticeMaryIrvine,JudgeoftheCourtofAppeal,wasappointedasaJudgeof the Supreme Court. Ms. Justice Irvine’sappointment filled the vacancy that arosefrom the retirement of Ms. Justice MaryLaffoyinJune2017.

Ms. Justice Mary Finlay Geoghegan, accompanied by her husband, Mr. Justice Hugh Geoghegan, former Judge of the Supreme Court, on the occasion of her retirement from the Supreme Court in June 2019.

Ms. Justice Mary Irvine, with the Chief Justice Mr. Justice Frank Clarke, on the occasion of her appointment to the Supreme Court in May 2019.


InNovember2019,Ms.JusticeMarieBaker,JudgeoftheCourtofAppeal,wasnominatedforappointmentasaJudge of the Supreme Court. Ms.JusticeBaker’sappointmentfilledbythe retirementofMs. JusticeSusanDenhaminJuly2017.

Biographical details on both Ms.Justice Irvine andMs. Justice Bakercanbefoundonpages41-42ofthisreport.

Withthesetwoappointments,themembershipoftheSupremeCourtattheendof2019stoodatnineJudgescomprisingtheChiefJusticeandeightordinarymembers.Thereiscurrentlyonevacancyon theCourt, arising from the retirementofMs. JusticeFinlayGeoghegan in June2019.

Ms. Justice Marie Baker, with the Chief Justice Mr. Justice Frank Clarke, on the occasion of her appointment to the Supreme Court in December 2019.


The Constitution of Ireland

Bunreacht na hÉireann – the ConstitutionofIreland–isthebasiclawthatgovernstheState and provides, pursuant to Article 5,that Ireland is a sovereign, independentanddemocraticState.Itprovidesforthreebranches ofGovernment – the Executive,the Legislature and the Judiciary – and atripartite separation of powers betweenthese three branches. This doctrine,attributed to the French politicalphilosopher Montesquieu, ensures asystem of checks and balances betweeneachofthethreebranchesofState.

Bunreacht na hÉireann has been described as one of Ireland’s seven sacred texts and, as thefundamental legaldocumentgoverningtheexistenceandauthorityoftheState,hasat itscore,thesourceofallpowersofthebranchesofGovernmentandthefundamentalrightsofcitizens.

In1937,aPlebiscitewasheldwhichaskedthePeopletodecidewhetherornottheywishedtoratifyadraftConstitutionthatwasputtothem.TheresultofthePlebiscitewasthat685,105votersapprovedofadoptingthedraftConstitution,with526,945rejectingtheproposal.AsthemajorityofvotescastatthePlebisciteindicatedanapprovaloftheproposal,thedraftConstitutionwasdeemedtohavebeenapprovedbythePeopleandon29thDecember,1937,thenewConstitutionofIreland,BunreachthahÉireann,cameintoforce.

The structure of the Constitution Comprising50Articles,thefirstpartoftheConstitutionrelatestohowtheState istooperate,withprovisionssettingouttherespectiveconstitutionalbasisforthethreebranchesofState.Inaddition,provisionisalsomadeforspecificofficessuchastheAttorneyGeneral,theComptrollerandAuditorGeneralandtheCouncilofState.ThesecondpartoftheConstitutionisgivenovertothespecifyingoffundamentalrightswhichareaffordedtocitizens.Suchpersonalrights includetherighttoequality,liberty,inviolabilityofthedwellingandrighttopeacefulassembly.SpecificArticlesrelatetotherightsoftheFamily(Article41),Education(Article42),Children(Article42A),PrivateProperty(Article43)andReligion(Article44).TheConstitutionconcludeswithprovisionsrelatingtohowthetextoftheConstitution itselfcanbeamendedandtheprocessthroughwhichsuchanamendmentmaybebroughtabout,namelybywayofaConstitutionalReferendum.Finally,Article50makesprovisionforlawsineffectpriortothecomingintoeffectoftheConstitution,andthatarenotinconsistentwiththeConstitution,tocontinuetohavetheforceoflaw.AstheConstitutionsupersededtheConstitutionofSaorstátÉireann–theIrishFreeState–whichcameintoeffectuponIrelandgainingindependencein1922,itwasnecessarytoprovideforacontinuationofthelawsenactedbySaorstátÉireann.


IrelandisadualiststatewithArticle29.6oftheConstitutionprovidingthatinternationalagreementshavetheforceoflawtotheextentdeterminedbytheOireachtas.Thismeansthatinternationaltreatiesenteredintomustbeincorporatedintodomesticlawbylegislationbeforetheyareapplicablewithinthe State. An example would be the incorporation into Irish law of the Vienna Conventions onDiplomaticandConsularImmunitieswhichwaseffectedbytheenactmentoftheDiplomaticRelationsandImmunitiesAct1967.

TheexceptiontothisrequirementisEuropeanCommunitylaw,which,underthetermsofArticle29oftheConstitution,hastheforceoflawintheState.Thismeansthatanylawormeasure,theadoptionofwhich is necessitated by Ireland’s membership of the European Union, may not, in principle, beinvalidatedbyanyprovisionoftheConstitution.

TheConstitutionofIrelandiscomprisestwotexts–oneintheIrishlanguageandtheotherintheEnglishlanguage.Article8providesthattheIrishlanguageisthefirstofficiallanguageoftheState,withtheEnglishlanguagerecognisedasthesecondofficiallanguage.Article25.5.2°oftheConstitutionprovidesthetextoftheConstitutionenrolledforrecordintheOfficeoftheRegistraroftheSupremeCourtisthedefinitiveversionoftheConstitutionandisconclusiveevidenceofitsexistence.During2019,anupdatedtextoftheConstitutionwasenrolledandareportonthiscanbefoundonpage51.

The Constitution and the Courts TheConstitutionestablishestheCourtsofIrelandandconfersontheSuperiorCourts–theSupremeCourt, the Court of Appeal and the High Court – the exclusive and sole power to review theconstitutionalityoflegislationandtoinvalidatelegislationwhichisincompatiblewiththeConstitution.TheSupremeCourt,astheultimatearbiteroftheConstitution,hasbeentaskedwithinterpretingtheprovisionsoftheConstitution.Sincethe1960swhen,inthelandmarkcaseofRyanv.AttorneyGeneral4,theHighCourtmadeafinding,whichwasupheldbytheSupremeCourtonappeal,thatArticle40.3oftheConstitution,whichguaranteespersonalrights,determiningthatthatArticleguaranteedpersonalrights not expressly referred to in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has identified specifiedunenumeratedrights,suchastherighttoearnalivelihood5andtherighttolegalaidincriminalcases.6

CourtssuchastheSpecialCriminalCourt,theCircuitCourtandtheDistrictCourt,whilstreferredtoas‘legislative’or‘statutory’courts,inthattheirestablishmentandexistenceemanatesfromanActoftheOireachtas,allthreecourtsderivetheirultimateauthorityfromtheConstitutionofIreland.

Article38.3.1°oftheConstitutionprovidesthatspecialcourtsmaybeestablishedbylawforthetrialofoffencesincaseswhereitmaybedeterminedinaccordancewithsuchlawthattheordinarycourtsareinadequatetosecuretheeffectiveadministrationofjustice,andthepreservationofpublicpeaceandorder.TheSpecialCriminalCourt,establishedpursuanttotheOffencesAgainsttheStateAct1939,issuchacourtwhichderivesitsexistencefromArticle38.3.1°.Article34.3oftheConstitutionprovidesforCourtsofFirstInstance.Article34.3.4°providesthattheCourtsofFirstInstanceshallincludeCourtsof localand limited jurisdictionwitharightofappealasdeterminedby law.TheDistrictandCircuitCourtsareestablishedinlawtobesuchcourtsoflocalandlimitedjurisdiction.

4[1965]1I.R.2945[1992]1I.R.5036[1976]1I.R.325


Amending and Interpreting the Constitution BunreachtnahÉireannhasbeendescribedas“alivingdocument”andasfarbackasthe1970sitwasstatedbytheSupremeCourt(perWalshJ.),intheseminalcaseofMcGeev.AttorneyGeneral7,that:

“…nointerpretationoftheConstitutionisintendedtobefinalforalltime.Itisgiveninthelightofprevailingideasandconcepts.”8

In its constitutional role as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, the Supreme Court hasinterpretedtheConstitutionoverthepasteightdecadesasprotectingfundamentalrightssuchastherighttobodilyintegrityinRyanv.AttorneyGeneral9andmartialprivacyinMcGeev.AttorneyGeneral10.TheSupremeCourt,in2017,heldinNVHv.MinisterforJusticeandEquality,thattheabsolutebanonasylumseekersworkingwascontrarytotheconstitutionalrighttoseekemployment.

AsthebasiclawoftheState,theConstitutionofIrelandcanonlybeamendedbythePeoplethroughthe Referendum process that is expressly provided for in Article 47 of the Constitution. In aConstitutionalReferendum,whereaBilltoamendtotheConstitutionispassedbytheOireachtasitisthenputtothePeopleforthemtodeterminewhethertheyapproveorrejecttheproposalcontainedintheBill.

Since1937, therehavebeen32amendments to theConstitution, themost recentbeingaproposalapprovedbyamajorityofthePeopleataReferendumheldinMay2019toamendArticle41oftheConstitutiontoprovidefortherecognitionofforeigndivorcesandtoreducetheperiodoftimepersonsarerequiredbylawtobeapartbeforeanapplicationfordivorcecanbebrought.

The nature of the amendments to the Constitution in recent times illustrate the changing sociallandscapeof theState. Inaddition,amendments to theConstitutionhavebeen requiredaspartofIreland’smembershipoftheEuropeanUnion.OtheramendmentshaveincludeinsertingaprohibitiononthedeathpenaltyfromtheConstitution,ratifyingIreland’smembershipoftheInternationalCriminalCourtandtoinsertanewArticle,Article42A,intotheConstitutiontoexpresslyprovidespecificrightsforchildren.

Inrecentyears,therehavebeenaseriesofproposalsputtothePeopletoamendtheConstitution.ThesehaveincludedamendingtheConstitutiontoprovidefortheestablishmentoftheCourtofAppeal,toprovideformarriageequalitywithoutdistinctionastosex;andtoremovetheoffenceofBlasphemy.

It isworth noting that there have been a number of referendums that have been heldwhere theproposalputtothePeopleoneachoccasionwasnotapprovedbyamajority.SuchproposalsincludedreducingtheageofeligibilityfornominationtotheOfficeofPresidentandalsotheproposaltoabolishtheUpperHouseofParliament,SeanadÉireann(theSenate).

AstheConstitutionofIrelandprogressesthroughtheninthdecadesinceitsenactment,itcontinuestobeamenabletochangeonlybytheexpressdesireofthePeople,manifestedthroughtheReferendumprocess.TheSupremeCourt,andtheothercourtsthatmakeuptheSuperiorCourts,continuewiththeircollectivetaskininterpretingtheConstitutionincaseswhereissuesofconstitutionallawarise.Insodoing,theCourtsareboundbytheConstitutionitselfandtheextensivebodyofjurisprudencethathasdevelopedintheinterveningeightdecades.

7[1974]I.R.2848[1974]I.R.284at3199[1965]1I.R.28410[1974]I.R.284


Sixth enrolment of the Constitution

Article25.5oftheConstitutionprovides that It shallbe lawfulfortheTaoiseach,fromtimetotime as occasion appears tohimto require, tocause tobepreparedunderhissupervisiona text (in both the officiallanguages) of the Constitutionas then in forceembodyingallamendments theretoforemadethereto.

Acopyofeverytextsoprepared,whenauthenticatedbythesignaturesoftheTaoiseachandtheChiefJustice,shallbesignedbythePresidentandshallbeenrolledforrecordintheofficeoftheRegistraroftheSupremeCourt.

Theprocessofauthentication isquitemethodicalwithAn t-Uachtarán,AnTaoiseachand theChiefJusticerequiredtoinitialeachpageofthetextoftheConstitution,todemonstratethattheheadofeachorganoftheGovernment:theExecutive,theLegislature,andtheJudiciary,hasreviewedthetextinbothofficiallanguagesandaresatisfiedthatthetextconformswithpreviouslyenrolledtextor,whereapplicable,aconstitutionalamendmentasapprovedbythePeopleataReferendum.

On4thNovember2019,ataceremonyheld in Áras an Uachtaráin, PresidentMichaelD.Higgins,accompaniedbyAnTaoiseach Leo Varadkar and ChiefJusticeMr.JusticeFrankClarke,signedanupdatedversionoftheConstitutionofIreland.

PresidentHiggins signed a text of theConstitution that embodies allconstitutional amendments madesince the last enrolment in1999,andwhich has been authenticated by thesignatures of both the Taoiseach andthe Chief Justice, as required by theConstitution.

President Michael D. Higgins signing the sixth enrolled text of Bunreacht na hÉireann, accompanied by An Taoiseach Leo Varadkar T.D. and the Chief Justice of Ireland, The Hon. Mr. Justice Frank Clarke. (Photograph courtesy of Maxwell Photography)


OncesignedbythePresident,thetextisenrolledintheOfficeoftheRegistraroftheSupremeCourt.Whenenrolled,thistextbecomesthedefinitivetextoftheConstitutionofIreland.ThisisthesixthoccasiononwhichatextoftheConstitution,inbothofficiallanguages,wasenrolled.Previousenrolmentsoccurredin1938(followingtheapprovalbythePeopleoftheConstitutioninitsoriginalformin1937),1942,1980,1990and1999.Sincethelastenrolmentin1999,therehavebeenfourteenamendmentstotheConstitution.

OncesignedbythePresident,theDepartmentoftheTaoiseachliaiseswiththeOfficeoftheRegistraroftheSupremeCourttoensurethatthefinalstageoftheprocess–theenrolmentitself–isconcluded.

After receiving the enrolled text, theRegistraroftheSupremeCourt,Mr.JohnMahon,signedastatementattheendofthe text to indicate that the text wasenrolled in theOfficeof theRegistraroftheSupremeCourtonthe13thNovember,2019.

The safe custody of the enrolled text ofthe Constitution is the responsibility ofthe Registrar of the Supreme Court andthe text is kept securely at the seat oftheSupremeCourt,which is locatedattheFourCourtsinDublin.

Registrar of the Supreme Court, John Mahon, concluding the formal process of enrolling the text of the Constitution of Ireland.

The five previously enrolled texts of the Constitution which were displayed at the enrolment ceremony in Áras an Uachtaráin. The text enrolled on 4th November 2019 supersedes the previous version enrolled in 27th May 1999. (Photograph courtesy of Maxwell Photoraphy


UponreceivingtheenrolledtextfromtheSecretary-GeneraltotheGovernment,Mr.MartinFraser,theRegistrartotheSupremeCourtMr.JohnMahon,accompaniedbytheChiefJustice,posedforasymbolicphotograph,recreatingaphotographtakenatthetimeofthefirstenrollingwhenthethenRegistraroftheSupremeCourt,Mr.JamesO’BrienK.C.accompaniedbythethenChiefJusticeTimothySullivan,receivedasignedtextoftheConstitutionfromthenSecretarytotheGovernment,Mr.MauriceMoynihan.

Secretary General to the Government, Mr. Martin Fraser, presenting the enrolled text of the Constitution of Ireland to the Registrar of the Supreme Court, Mr. John Mahon, accompanied by the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Frank Clarke.

In the background is the photograph of the presentation of the first enrolled text of the Constitution in 1938.

The then Secretary to the Government, Maurice Moynihan, presenting the first enrolled text of the Constitution of Ireland to then Registrar of the Supreme Court, James O’Brien K.C., in the presence of the then Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Timothy Sullivan.


Current and former Judges of the Supreme Court look on as Ms. Justice Susan Denham, as the first female Judge appointed to the Supreme Court, signs a copy of the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919, symbolising the centenary of the Act’s enactment on 23rd December, 1919.

Women on the Supreme Court

23rd December, 2019 marked the centenary of the enactment of the SexDisqualification(Removal)Act,1919,alandmarkstatutethathadthehistoriceffectofremovingthebarrierthathadpreventedwomenfrompractisinginlaw.WhilstitwouldtakelessthantwoyearsforthefirstwomentobecalledtotheBarandthefirstwomentopracticeattheBar,itwasnotuntil1992thatthefirstfemalejudgewasappointedtotheSupremeCourt,withtheappointmentofMrs.JusticeSusanDenham.Tomarkthishistoricoccasion,inOctober2019,allretiredwomenjudgesoftheSupremeCourtwere invitedto theSupremeCourt toreflectandcelebrate thecentenaryof the1919Act.RetiredmembersoftheCourt, formerChiefJustice,Ms.JusticeSusanDenham,Ms.JusticeCatherineMcGuinness,Ms.JusticeFidelmaMacken,Ms.JusticeMaryLaffoy,andMs.JusticeMaryFinlayGeoghegan,joinedthecurrentjudgesoftheCourt,Ms.JusticeElizabethDunne,Ms.JusticeIseultO’Malley,andMs.JusticeMaryIrvine.

In a symbolic gesture toillustrate the significance thatthe1919Acthad,eachofthecurrent and former judges oftheCourtsignedacopyofthe1919 Act, which will hang intheFourCourtsforposterity.


Eachofthejudgescommentedonhowtheyovercametheirownindividualhurdlesandthatthelandscapethatnowmeetswomeninthelawisafardifferentonethanthatwhichawaitedthejudgeswhentheyembarkedontheirownrespectivelegalcareers.

Remarkingonherownexperience,Ms.JusticeMaryIrvinesaid:

“IreallyhopethatwomenstartingacareeratTheBartodayconsiderthemselvespartofonesinglelargecommunityofbarristerswheregenderissimplynotanissue.

RegardlessoftheSexDisqualification(Removal)Act,1919,whenIstartedinpractice,in1979,womenwereasrareashen’steeth.And,evenifitwasn’tactuallythecase,IthinkmostofusfeltthattheeyesofourlegalcolleaguesandtheJudiciaryweretrainedonus,waitingforuseithertomakeamistakeorproveourworth.

Today,withsomanywomeninpracticeatTheBarandwithintheJudiciary,it’sperhapshardtobelievejusthowmalethelegallandscapeoftheLawLibrarywasbackinthe1970s,eventhoughwomenhadenjoyedtherighttopractiseasbarristersforwellover50 years. I remember that landscape so very well and not only because of whathappenedwhen,in1978,IappliedtojoinTheBarGolfSociety,which,atthattime,hadneverhada femalemember. My requestwas counteredwithamotion, albeitputforwardbyamalecolleague,whoI laterdiscoveredhadawickedsenseofhumour,whichproposedthatnowomanshouldeverbeadmittedtothesociety.Thisrattledmyconfidence somewhat, even if the motion was easily defeated due to the almostunanimoussupportofmymalecolleagues.Nonetheless,thislittleanecdotefromthelate1970’sprobablyservestoshowthatithastakenthegreaterpartofthe100yearssincetheSexDisqualification(Removal)Act,1919forwomentobetrulyacceptedasequalmemberoftheprofession.”

Current and former women members of the Supreme Court at a specially convened gathering held at the Supreme Court in October 2019

Back (L-R): Ms. Justice Mary Irvine, Ms. Justice Mary Finlay Geoghegan, Ms. Justice Mary Laffoy, Ms. Justice Elizabeth Dunne, Ms. Justice Iseult O’Malley

Front (L-R): Ms. Justice Catherine McGuinness, Ms. Justice Susan Denham, Ms. Justice Fidelma Macken.


OfthetwoappointmentstotheSupremeCourtmadein2019,bothwerewomen–Ms.JusticeMary Irvine was appointed in May 2019 and Ms. Justice Marie Baker was appointed inDecember2019.Asof31stDecember2019,oftheninejudgesoftheSupremeCourt,fourarewomen.

Todate,ninewomenhavebeenappointedasJudgesoftheSupremeCourt.

Ms.JusticeSusanDenhamwasappointedasaJudgeoftheSupremeCourtinDecember1992,having previously been a Judge of the High Court since 1991. Ms. Justice Denham wasappointedastheeleventhChiefJusticeofIrelandinJuly2011andwasthefirstwomantoholdthatoffice.SheretiredinJuly2017.

Ms. JusticeCatherineMcGuinnesswas appointed to the SupremeCourt in February 2000,havingpreviouslybeenaJudgeoftheHighCourt,andpriortowhich,aJudgeoftheCircuitCourt.SheretiredinNovember2006.

Ms.JusticeFidelmaMackenwasappointedinJune2007,andwaspreviouslyaJudgeoftheHighCourt.SheretiredinFebruary2012.

Ms.JusticeMaryLaffoywasappointedinJuly2013,havingpreviouslybeenaJudgeoftheHighCourtsince1995.SheretiredinJune2017.

Ms.JusticeElizabethDunnewasappointedinJuly2013,havingpreviouslybeenaJudgeoftheHighCourt.PriortoherappointmenttotheHighCourtshewasaJudgeoftheCircuitCourt.

Ms. Justice Iseult O’Malley was appointed to the Supreme Court in October 2015, havingpreviouslybeenaJudgeoftheHighCourt.

Ms.JusticeMaryFinlayGeogheganwasappointedtotheSupremeCourtinDecember2017,havingpreviouslybeenaJudgeoftheCourtofAppealandpriortothat,aJudgeoftheHighCourt.SheretiredinJune2019.

Ms.JusticeMaryIrvinewasappointedinMay2019,havingsubsequentlybeenaJudgeoftheCourtofAppealandpriortothataJudgeoftheHighCourt.

Ms.JusticeMarieBakerwasappointedinDecember2019,uponherelevationfromtheCourtofAppeal.ShewaspreviouslyaJudgeoftheHighCourt.

TheJudiciaryandLegalProfessionsattheendof2019

Attheendofthe2019,thepercentagesofwomenintherespectivelegalprofessionswereasfollows:

• 52%ofpractisingSolicitorsarewomen.• 38%ofpractisingBarristersarewomen.• 17%ofSeniorCounselarewomen.• 38%oftheJudiciaryarewomen.


Unveiling of historic Judicial Robe sketch

InhiscapacityasChairmanoftheRulesCommitteefortheSupremeCourtandtheHighCourt,TheHon.Mr.JusticeHughKennedy(ChiefJusticeofIrelandfrom1924to1936)campaignedvigorouslyforthereplacementofthewigsandgownstraditionallywornbyjudgesandbarristers,whichheregardedasthetrappingsofanalienregime,withrobesinspiredbythecostumesofthebrehonsorjudgesofoldGaelicIreland.HewasenthusiasticallysupportedbyW.B.YeatswhorecommendedthattherobesmightbedesignedbytheEnglishartist,CharlesShannon.

Ultimately,KennedyobtainedsketchesforthenewrobesfromShannonandsoughttopersuadethejudgesoftheirmerits.However,hereceivedlittlesupportfromthejudgesorthegovernmentandthetraditionaldresswasretained,althoughsomedistrictjusticesadoptedaformofhead-dressfavouredbyKennedyandmodelledonthatwornbytheVenetiandoges.KennedyhimselfdeclinedtowearhiswigwhensittingintheSupremeCourt:hecarrieditinhishandandplaceditonthebench,apparentlyregardingthatasasufficientcompliancewiththerules.Kennedy’sexpressdesirewas“toobtain, ifpossible,someschemeofjudicialrobeswhichwouldconnectupwithourownhistory,withoutatthesametimebeingextravagantortheatrical.”

Whatwastofollowwas,andisevidentfromthepapersofHughKennedy,amethodicalandchallengingprocess:anexchangeofcorrespondencebetweenallthree.

Kennedy’szealtobringthisinitiativetofruitionisevidentfromhiscorrespondencetoCharlesShannon,andindeedtoWilliamButlerYeats.Intermsofthecolourstobeused,KennedysuggestedtoShannonthathelooktotheBookofKellsasasourceofinspiration,observingthata“numberofdrapedhumanfiguresshowedawonderfulvarietyofcolourschemes,someofverygreatbeauty.”

Shannonprepared forKennedy twosetsof sketches.The first setwassent inDecember1924.ThesecondsetwassentinJanuary1925,inresponsetocommentsfromKennedyafterconsultationswithhisfellowjudges.

ThepapersofHughKennedy,depositedatUniversityCollegeDublin,castfurtherlightontheprocessandincludecorrespondencebetweenKennedy,ShannonandYeats.Thecollectioncomprisestwosetsofsketches.ItwasconsideredthatSketchNumber5fromSetNumber2hadbeenlost.

However,BrianO’Connell,grandnephewbymarriagetoHughKennedy,discoveredthesketchlastyearand ithaskindlybeendonatedbyMr.O’Connell to theSupremeCourt tocomplementtheexistingcollectionofsketchespreparedbyCharlesShannon.

AtaceremonyintheFourCourtsheldinNovember2019,theChiefJustice,TheHon.Mr.JusticeFrankClarke,unveiledthesketchandthankedMr.O'ConnellforentrustingthesketchtotheSupremeCourtforposterity,whereitwillhangalongsidetheothersketchespreparedbyCharlesShannon.


Mr. Brian O’Connell with Chief Justice Mr. Justice Frank Clarke on the occasion of the unveiling of the historic Judicial Robe Sketch, Sketch No. 5, in the Four Courts, Dublin.

The following is the description that accompanies the sketch, based on the artist Charles Shannon’s own observations.

Set 2, January 1925

Sketch 5: This drawing is based on Sketch 5 of the 1924 drawings and was intended for use in the Supreme Court. The design draws its inspiration from Roman dignitaries, with its faux ermine cape which could be easily substituted for a silk cape, according to the prevailing climate.

It was intended that this design in crimson or 'cardinal's red' would be reserved exclusively for the Chief Justice, while a purple version would be worn by the other members of the Supreme Court


The Judicial Council

Onitsestablishmentonthe17thDecember2019,allmembersoftheJudiciary,includingjudgesoftheSupremeCourt,becamemembersoftheJudicialCouncil.ThefunctionsoftheJudicialCouncilaretopromoteandmaintain:

(a)excellenceintheexercisebyjudgesoftheirjudicialfunctions;(b)highstandardsofconductamongjudges,havingregardtotheprinciplesofjudicialconductrequiring judges to uphold and exemplify judicial independence, impartiality, integrity,propriety (including theappearanceofpropriety), competenceanddiligenceand toensureequalityoftreatmenttoallpersonsbeforethecourts;(c)theeffectiveandefficientuseofresourcesmadeavailabletojudgesforthepurposesoftheexerciseoftheirfunctions;(d)continuingeducationofjudges,(e)respectfortheindependenceofthejudiciary,and(f)publicconfidenceinthejudiciaryandtheadministrationofjustice.

AnumberofCommitteeswillbeestablishedunder the JudicialCouncil, including:a JudicialStudiesCommittee: a Personal Injuries Guidelines Committee, a Sentencing Guidelines and InformationCommitteeandJudicialSupportCommittees.TheCouncilmayestablishsuchothercommitteesasitseesfit.TheChiefJusticeischairpersonoftheJudicialCouncilandthePresidentoftheCourtofAppealisVice-Chairperson.TheChiefJusticehasnominatedMr.KevinO’NeillasinterimSecretarytotheCouncilinaccordancewithsection33oftheJudicialCouncilAct.AninformationsessionforalljudgesinrelationtotheJudicialCounciltookplacein2019inpreparationfortheestablishmentoftheJudicialCouncil.The first meeting of the Council will take place in February 2019, during which a number of theCommitteeswillbeestablishedandelectionswilltakeplacefortheBoardoftheCouncilandthenthecommitteesinrespectofwhichtheJudicialCouncilActprovidesforelections.

Minister for Justice and Equality, Mr. Charles Flanagan T.D., accompanied by the Attorney General Mr. Seámus Woulfe S.C. and the Presidents of the five Courts on the occasion of the establishment of the Judicial Council. Also photographed was Kevin O’Neill, Interim Secretary to the Council and Mary Murphy, Judicial Council secretariat.


2

Part 2The Supreme Court in 2019


Statistics

Applications for Leave to Appeal

TheSupremeCourtfirstbegantocontroltheflowofappealstotheCourtin2014uponthecoming into forceof itsnew jurisdictionpursuant to theThirty-thirdAmendmenttotheConstitution.Sincethen,769applicationsforleavetoappealhavebeenresolved.11

ThebelowgraphillustratestheincreasingnumberofapplicationsforleavetoappealbroughttotheSupremeCourteachyearsincethefirstyearinwhichitbegantoconsidersuchapplications.FigurescompiledbytheSupremeCourtOfficeindicatethat,in2019,theCourtdetermined248applicationsforleavetoappealandgrantedleaveinrespectof64ofsuchapplications(26%).TheCourtrefusedleaveinrelationto180applications(73%).

Therehasbeena19%increaseinapplicationsforleavetoappealbroughtin2019comparedto2018,andanoverallincreaseof138%since2015,thefirstyearforwhichfullfiguresareavailable.SuchanincreasereflectsthetransitioningbytheCourttoitsnewjurisdictionandthebelowgraphillustratesastabilisingofthenumberofapplicationsforleavetoappeal.

11AnnualstatisticsforcasesconsideredbytheSupremeCourteachyearcanbefoundintheAnnualReportsoftheCourtsService,availableatbeta.courts.ie

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

IncomingandResolvedApplicationsforLeavetoAppeal

Incomingapplicationsforleave Resolvedapplicationsforleave


Categorisation of Applications for Leave to Appeal

Applications for Leave to Appeal from the High Court and Court of Appeal Itmustbeemphasisedthattheforegoingcategorisationcomeswithacaveatinthatmanyofthecasesinvolveissueswhichfallundermorethanoneareaoflaw.Forexample,quiteafewmajorcriminalcasesinvolveconstitutionalissues.Likewise,thesamesubstantiveclaimcanbeframedbothinprivatelaw(suchastort)butalsoinpubliclaw(suchaslegitimateexpectation).ThecategorisationinthisChapterseeksto identifythesinglecategorywhich ismostcentraltothecasebut isshouldnotbetakentomeanthattheremaynotbeaspectsofthecasewhichraiseimportantquestionsunderotherheadings.

Applications for Leave to Appeal from the High Court and Court of Appeal Thegraphandtableonpages63and64categoriseallapplicationsforleavetoappealbroughttotheSupreme Court in 2019 into areas of law. The categorisation is based on a consideration of thepublished determinations of the Court issued during 2019. Although the task of categorisingapplicationsforleavetoappealissubjectiveand,inreality,onecasemayencompasslegalissuesacrossa number of areas of law, a categorisation by case type indicates that the highest number ofapplicationsforleavetoappealwerebroughtincasesinvolvingproceduralissuesand,aswasthecasein2018,cases involving judicial reviewproceedings in theareaof immigration lawandcriminal lawproceedingswerethesubstantiveareasof lawwhichgaverisetothemostapplicationsfor leavetoappeal.Casesinvolvingimmigrationlawissuesaccountedfor11%ofapplicationsforleavetoappeal,withleavebeinggrantedin30.8%ofsuchapplications.7.9%ofapplicationsforleavetoappealinvolvedissuesofcriminallaw.Leavewasgrantedin27.8%ofsuchcases.

Applications for Leave to Appeal directly to the High Court TheConstitutionofIrelandprovidesforadirectappeal,knowncolloquiallyasa‘leapfrog’appealfromtheHighCourttotheSupremeCourtinexceptionalcircumstances.In2019,80ofthe228(35.6%)ofthepublisheddeterminationsoftheSupremeCourtinvolvedapplicationsforwhichleapfrogappealsweregranted.In28ofthe80determinations(35%),theSupremeCourtgrantedleavetoappealdirectlyfromtheHighCourt.Abreakdownofthecategoriesofcasesinwhichapplicationsforaleapfrogappealisprovidedonpages65and66.Thiscategorisationillustratesthat21ofthe80applications(26.3%)relatedtocasesinvolvingjudicialreviewintheareaofimmigrationlawandthat28.6%ofsuchleapfrogapplicationsforleavetoappealweregranted.

Ofthe28instancesinwhichleaveto‘leapfrogappeal’appealwasgrantedfromtheHighCourttotheSupremeCourt,9(32%)wereincasesinwhichtheHighCourthadrefusedtocertifythatanappealtotheCourt ofAppealwas justified. Such a certificate is requiredby statute in certain circumstancesbeforeanappeal fromaHighCourtdecision canbebrought to theCourtofAppeal.However, theSupremeCourthasnoted in itsdeterminationsthat,asaconsequenceoftheappellatestructure inplacefollowingtheThirty-thirdAmendmentoftheConstitution,eveniftheHighCourtrefusestograntsuch a certificate, this does not preclude a party fromapplying for a leapfrog leave directly to theSupremeCourt.


Indeed,theCourthasstatedthatwhereitissatisfiedthattheleapfrogapplicationpresentsanissueofpublicimportance,andthusmeetsthebase-lineconstitutionalstandardforleavetoappeal,theveryfact that the High Court has refused a certificate might satisfy the exceptional circumstancesrequirementinleapfrogcases,thusjustifyingthegrantingofleavetoappeal.

0 50 100 150 200 250

DataProtection

Employment

Immigration

Landlord/Tenant

LocusStandi

ContemptofCourt

Family

Article40/HabeasCorpus

Company

Constitutional

EU

Indeterminate

EAW

Costs

JudicialReview(Environment/Planning)

JudicialReview(Misc.)

Property

Tort

JudicialReview(Criminal)

Evidence

Commercial/Contract

StatutoryInterpretation

Criminal

JudicialReview(Immigration)

Procedural

TotalApplications

BreakdownofpublishedApplicationforLeavedeterminations

AFLsBrought LeaveGranted


Breakdown of published Application for Leave determinations by number Category AFLs Brought Leave Granted

DataProtection 0 Employment 1 1Immigration 1 Landlord/Tenant 1 LocusStandi 1 1ContemptofCourt 2 Family 2 1Article40/HabeasCorpus 3 1Company 3 1Constitutional 3 1EU 4 2Indeterminate 4 EAW 5 2Costs 6 1JudicialReview(Environment/Planning) 6 4JudicialReview(Misc.) 6 2Property 6 Tort 7 2JudicialReview(Criminal) 9 2Evidence 12 1Commercial/Contract 14 2StatutoryInterpretation 17 12Criminal 18 5JudicialReview(Immigration) 26 8Procedural 71 6TotalApplications 228 55


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Article40/HabeasCorpus

ContemptofCourt

DataProtection

Employment

JudicialReview(Property)

LocusStandi

Planning

Property

Company

Constitutional

Costs

Criminal

Evidence

JudicialReview(Misc.)

Landlord/Tenant

EU

Family

Indeterminate

JudicialReview(Criminal)

Tort

EAW

JudicialReview…

Commercial/Contract

StatutoryInterpretation

Procedural

JudicialReview(Immigration)

TotalApplications

Breakdown of Published Leapfrog Application for Leave determinations

LeaveGranted AFLsBrought


Breakdown of Published Leapfrog Applications for Leave by Number Category AFLs Brought Leave Granted

Article40/HabeasCorpus 0 ContemptofCourt 0 0DataProtection 0 Employment 0 JudicialReview(Property) 0 LocusStandi 0 Planning 0 Property 0 Company 1 Constitutional 1 1Costs 1 Criminal 0 0Evidence 1 JudicialReview(Misc.) 1 Landlord/Tenant 1 EU 2 2Family 2 1Indeterminate 2 JudicialReview(Criminal) 2 1Tort 3 1EAW 4 2JudicialReview(Environment/Planning) 5 4Commercial/Contract 6 StatutoryInterpretation 9 7Procedural 18 3JudicialReview(Immigration) 21 6TotalApplications 80 28


Full Appeals Determined in 2019

New jurisdiction appeals

TheSupremeCourtdisposedof144‘fullappeals’in2019,60ofwhichwere‘new’appealswhichwerebroughtunderthejurisdictionoftheCourtwhichcameintoforcewiththeestablishmentoftheCourtofAppealin2014.

Article 64 ‘Returns’

WhentheConstitutionwasamendedtoestablishtheCourtofAppeal,Article64,atransitoryprovision(meaningthatitdoesnotnowfeatureintheprintededitionoftheConstitution)providedthat,onthedayoftheestablishmentoftheCourtofAppeal,theChiefJustice,ifsatisfiedthatitisintheinterestsof the administration of justice and the efficient determination of appeals to do so, and with theconcurrenceoftheotherjudgesoftheSupremeCourt,maydirectthatspecifiedappealsbeheardanddeterminedbytheCourtofAppeal.InOctober2014,thethenChiefJustice,Ms.JusticeSusanDenham,issuedadirectiontransferring1,355appealstotheCourtofAppeal.

TheSupremeCourt retainedover800appealsunder itsprevious jurisdiction,whicharecolloquiallyreferredtoas‘legacyappeals’.TheestablishmentoftheCourtofAppealenabledtheSupremeCourttodisposeofabacklogofsuchlegacyappealswhichhadaccumulatedasaresultofanalmostuniversalrightofappealwhichlaytotheSupremeCourtpriortotheestablishmentoftheCourtofAppel.TheCourthasnoweffectivelydisposedofallofitslegacycases,saveforasmallnumberofcaseswherecertainproceduralissueshavenotallowedforsuchcasestobedealtwithinfull.

However,theconstitutionalamendmentalteringtheappellatejurisdictionoftheSuperiorCourtshadtheeffectoftransferringthenearautomaticrightofappealfromtheSupremeCourttotheCourtofAppealwithonlyninejudgestoconsiderappealsinthenewcourt.Asaresult,abacklogofappealsintheCourtofAppealensued.Inordertoalleviatethisbacklog,theChiefJusticeandthePresidentoftheCourtofAppealagreedthatanumberofappealswhichhadbeentransferredtotheCourtofAppealunderArticle64of theConstitutionshouldbetransferredback to theSupremeCourt. In2019, theSupreme Court determined 60 ‘Article 64 return’ cases in order to assist the Court of Appeal toeffectivelyclearitsbacklog.

010203040506070

Newjurisdcitionappeals LegacyappealsreturnedunderArticle64

Otherlegacyappeals

BreakdownofFullAppealsDisposedof


Article 64 Applications

Article64.3.3providesthattheSupremeCourt,onanapplicationtoit,may,ifitissatisfiedthatitisjusttodoso,makeanorderthatcaneithercanceltheeffectofthedirectionorcancelorvarytheeffectofany provisions of that direction so far as it relates to that appeal. In 2019, the Supreme Courtdetermined71applicationsseekingthetransferofcasesfromtheCourtofAppealbacktotheSupremeCourt.

Requests for Preliminary Rulings by the Supreme Court to the Court of Justice of the European Union

Article267of theTreatyon theFunctioningof theEuropeanUnion (‘TFEU’)providesamechanismunderwhichnationalcourtswhichapplyEuropeanUnionlawincasesbeforethemmayreferquestionsofEUlawtotheCourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanUnion(‘CJEU’)wheresuchareferenceisnecessarytoenablethemtogivejudgment.TheSupremeCourt,asthecourtoffinalappeal,isunderadutytoreferquestionstotheCJEUwherenecessarybeforeitconcludesacase.

TheSupremeCourtof IrelandhasmadepreliminaryreferencesunderArticle267TFEU(orformerlyunderArticle234EC) in42casessince1983.Thebelowgraph indicates thenumberofpreliminaryreferencesmadebytheSupremeCourteachyear.

TheSupremeCourtmadeonereferencetotheCJEUin2019andthatwasinthecaseofKlohnv.AnBordPleanála&anor. InKlohn, theSupremeCourt considered the rightsofaudienceofaGermanlawyer(Rechtsanwalt)beforeIrishCourts.MrKlohnsoughttohavealegalrepresentative(Ms.Ohlig)whoisqualifiedinGermanyrepresenthimintheproceedingsinIreland.TheCourthadtoconsiderwhether the German qualified lawyer was permitted to conduct the case without working inconjunctionwithan Irish lawyer (the“inconjunctionwith” requirementwhich the IrishRegulationspresentlyrequire).

ThecourtconsideredtheproperinterpretationandapplicationofEuropeanandIrishlaw,specificallytheEuropeanCommunities(FreedomtoProvideServices)(Lawyers)Regulations1979,asamended,(“theRegulations”),andEuropeanCouncilDirective77/249/EECof22March1977,commonlyreferredtoas“theLawyers’ServicesDirective”.TheRegulationsimposearequirementonanon-IrishqualifiedEUlawyerwishingtorepresentapartybeforeacourt in litigiousproceedings in Irelandtowork“inconjunctionwith”anIrishqualifiedlawyerwhoenjoysarightofaudiencebeforetheIrishcourts.

TheChiefJustice,inhisjudgment,notedthatMs.OhlighasestablishedthatsheisentitledtoofferlegalservicesinIrelandundertheLawyers’Servicesregimeandsaidthattheonlyquestionwhicharisesinrespectofherrightofaudienceintheproceedingsistheproperinterpretationofrequirementtowork“in conjunctionwith” an Irish lawyer. ItwasMsOhlig’s contention that such a requirement is notnecessaryfortheproperconductingofthecase.

ThequestionarisesofwhetherIrelandisentitledtoimposethe“inconjunctionwith”obligationatall.This involved an examination ofwhether Ireland has properly transposed EU Law into Irish law byimposingthisrequirementonnon-IrishlawyersinIrishCourts.TheChiefJusticefoundthat“theanswertothatquestionisamatterofUnionlawinrespectofwhichtheanswerisnotclear”andaccordinglythematter is to be referred to the CJEU under the provisions of Article 267 of the Treaty on theFunctioningoftheEuropeanUnion.


Leapfrog appeals where refusal to certify leave Court

Ofthe28instancesinwhichleaveto‘leapfrogappeal’appealwasgrantedfromtheHighCourttotheSupremeCourt,9(32%)wereincasesinwhichtheHighCourthadrefusedtocertifythatanappealtotheCourt ofAppealwas justified. Such a certificate is requiredby statute in certain circumstancesbeforeanappealfromaHighCourtdecisioncanbebroughttotheCourtofAppeal.

However,theSupremeCourthasnotedinitsdeterminationsthat,asaconsequenceoftheappellatestructure inplace followingtheThirty-ThirdAmendmentof theConstitution,even if theHighCourtrefusestograntsuchacertificate,thisdoesnotprecludeapartyfromapplyingfora leapfrog leavedirectlytotheSupremeCourt.

Forcontext,only17oftheleapfrogapplicationswhichweregrantedweregovernedbysuchstatutoryschemes-meaning53%ofcaseswhereacertificateof leavetoappeal is requiredtoappeal totheCourtofAppealhadbeenrefusedthesameintheHighCourtandweresubsequentlygrantedleaveintheSupremeCourt. Reserved judgments

131Reserved judgmentsweredeliveredbytheSupremeCourtduring2019,up from91 judgmentsdeliveredin2018.

JudgmentsarepubliclyavailableontheCourtsServicewebsite,www.courts.ie.


Case summaries

Thefollowingcasesummariesarepublishedsolelytoprovideanoverviewofsomeofthe cases considered by the SupremeCourt in 2019. They do not formpart of thereasonsforthedecisionoftherespectivecaseanddonotintendtoconveyaparticularinterpretationof the case summarised. The case summaries arenot bindingon theSupreme Court or any other Court. The full judgment of the Court is the onlyauthoritative document. Judgments are public documents and are available atwww.courts.ie/judgments

1. F.v.M.2. A.M.v.HealthServiceExecutive3. Kerinsv.McGuinness&ors(No.1)4. O’Brienv.ClerkofDáilÉireann&ors5. Mohanv.Ireland6. DirectorofPublicProsecutionsv.Mahon7. P.v.JudgesoftheCircuitCourt&ors8. Ellisv.MinisterforJusticeandEquality&ors9. B.S.&R.S.v.RefugeeAppealsTribunal&ors10. Bates&anor.v.MinisterforAgriculture,FisheriesandFood&ors11. Sweeneyv.Ireland12. Kerinsv.McGuinness&ors(No.2)13. F.v.MentalHealthTribunal&ors.14. A.P.v.MinisterforJusticeandEquality15. DataProtectionCommissionerv.FacebookIrelandLtd.&anor.16. Tobinv.MinisterforDefence17. X.X.v.MinisterforJusticeandEquality18. Klohnv.AnBordPleanála19. NanoNagleSchoolv.Daly20. HarlequinProperty(SVG)Limited&orsv.O’Halloranandanor21. McKelveyv.IarnródÉireann22. MinisterforJusticeandEqualityv.Celmer23. Simpsonv.GovernorofMountjoyPrison&ors24. Michael(aminor)andorsv.MinisterforSocialProtection&ors25. E.R.v.DirectorofPublicProsecutions26. BankofIrelandMortgageBankv.O’Malley27. DirectorofPublicProsecutionsv.F.E.28. E.R.v.DirectorofPublicProsecutions29. Fagan&orsv.DublinCityCouncil30. DirectorofPublicProsecutionsv.C.Ce

ThecasesummariesprovideaflavourofthebroadvarietyofissuesthatfalltobeconsideredbytheSupremeCourt.Theselegalissuesspanavastarrayofareasoflawincludingconstitutionallaw,administrativelawandcriminallaw.


F v. M [2019] IESC 1 Judgment of Mr. Justice MacMenamin delivered on 22nd January 2019

TheSupremeCourtconsideredtwoappeals.ThefirstwasagainstanorderoftheHighCourtgrantingtheparties adivorceand regulating their financial relationship. TheAppellant (husband) argued that aHighCourtorderthathispensionfund(“theFund”)beawardedintheratioof80%totheRespondentand20%tohimdidnotmakeproperprovisionforhiminaccordancewiththegeneraldutyofthecourtstodoso.Inaninterimapplicationforastaypendingtheappeal,theCourtmadeatemporarypensionadjustmentorder,varying theHighCourtorder to require theRespondent (wife) topay intoCourthalfof theamountshereceived(40%ofthetotalvalueofthepension)andeachpartywasorderedtopay50%ofasumof€40,000forthecostsoftheFund’sadministratorsandtrustees.Underthesecondappeal,theAppellantcontendedthatthesecostswereexorbitant.

The Appellant submitted that hewas in poorer health thanwhen the High Court order wasmade. Hemaintainedthathewaseffectivelyinsolventandbeingpursuedbycreditors,andthatheshouldbeawardedthebalanceoftheFund,whiletheRespondentshouldreceivetheextentofhermother’sinheritance,saidtobepropertyvaluedat€1million.TheAppellantassertedthatinthemarriagehe“broughttothetable”adesirablehomewithavalueamountingto47%oftheFund.HecontendedthattheRespondenthadreceivedabout€500,000whichwasexpendedtonobenefitandwithoutobtainingaccommodation.Hesaidhecaredforoneoftheirdaughtersandthathelivedinthehomeheinheritedfromhisfather,attachedtowhichwasasmallstudfarmthatheoperated.Hewasentitledtoalifeinterestonlyintheproperty.TheRespondentsubmittedthatshewasinpoorhealth,strugglingfinancially,indebt,andwasrelyingonborrowingstolive.Shestatedthatlargesumsofthemoneyshehadpreviouslyreceivedhadbeenspentonlegalfees.

In relation to the duty to make “proper provision” for the parties having regard to their financialcircumstances,Mr.JusticeMacMenaminnotedthat,undertherelevantlegislation,theCourtmustbalancetherespectiverights,duties,obligationsandcircumstancesofeachpartyandthatproperprovisiondoesnotreflectwhocontributed“more”,butwhatwasappropriateandavailableforthepartiesatthetimeoftheorder.Mr.JusticeMacMenamin(withwhomMr.JusticeO’DonnellandMs.JusticeO’Malleyagreed)heldthat,generally,theCourtmustidentifywhetherthetrialjudgeerredinprincipleinmakingtheaward,butcommentedthat,onappeal,onecannotignoretherealitiesastheythenappear.MuchtimehadelapsedsincetheHighCourtorder.Inaddition,Mr.JusticeMacMenaminheldthatthetellingdistinctionwasthattheAppellant’saccommodationpositionwassignificantlymorestablethanthatoftheRespondent,whoinformed the Court that she had no home, no income and faced an uncertain future. Mr. JusticeMacMenaminconsideredthedeteriorationoftheAppellant’sfinancesandhealthwerefactorswhichthetrial judge could not have reasonably anticipated. Ultimately, Mr. Justice MacMenamin held that therespondentshouldreceive75%ofthebalanceofthefund,leaving25%totheappellant.

Astothesecondappeal,thetrusteesandadministratorswerenotputonnoticeofthedateoftheappeal,orthattheircostsweretobechallenged.Despite feelingsympathetictotheparties in lightof thecostsincurred,neitherCourtcouldhavemadeapensionadjustmentorderabsentinformationfromthetrustees.Thetrial judgeheldthatthis issuemightpotentiallybedealtwithbythePensionsOmbudsman,andtheCourtdidnotseethatheerredinsoholding.Mr.JusticeMacMenaminallowedthefirstappealtotheextentidentified above and varied theHigh Court order accordingly. No order for costswasmade. The CourtdirectedthatanyothermattermustbedealtwithbytheHighCourt.

Inmakingproperprovisionforpartiestodivorceproceedings,acourtmustbalancetherespectiverights,duties,obligationsandcircumstancesofeachparty.Properprovisiondoesnotreflectwhocontributed“more”butwhatwasappropriateandavailableforthepartiesatthetimeoftheorder.


A.M. v. Health Services Executive [2019] IESC 3 Judgment of Mr. Justice MacMenamin delivered on 29th January 2019

TheSupremeCourtdismissedanappealagainstajudgmentandordersoftheHighCourtmakingAM,whohadreceivedaten-yearsentenceformanslaughterandhadbeentransferredtotheCentralMentalHospital(“CMH”),awardofcourtandforhisdetentionintheCentralMentalHospitaljustpriortotheexpiryofhissentence. On appeal, AM argued that a wardship order should not bemade, and that any continueddetentioncouldonlybemadepursuanttotheMentalHealthActs,1945-2001(“theAct”).HecontendedthattheActcontainedhumanrightssafeguardswhichwereabsentfromthewardshipjurisdictionandthat,bymakingawardshipapplication,theHSEwasattemptingto“circumvent”protectionscontainedintheAct.Theissuewaswhetherinvoluntarydetentiononmentalhealthgroundscanbesoughtbywayofwardship,orifnecessary,theinherentjurisdictionoftheCourt,notwithstandingthatanindividualalsosatisfiesthecriteriaforadetentionorderundertheAct.

Mr.JusticeMacMenamin(withwhomMr.JusticeO'DonnellMs.JusticeDunne,Ms.JusticeO’MalleyandMs.JusticeFinlayGeogheganagreed)heldthatanorderundertheActmaybemadewhereitis“necessary”and “appropriate” todo so; but that courtswill also adopt a rangeof proceduresunder theirwardshipjurisdictiontoensuresuchmeasuresalsoprotecttheindividual’srights.Ingeneral,thetwostatutorycodesdonotoverlap.Mr.JusticeMacMenaminemphasisedthattheHighCourtdecisionhadtobeseenagainstitsfactualbackground,witharecognitionthatcourtsmustoccasionallydecidemattersonfactsaspresentedatthetimeofanurgentapplicationandthatCourtsofFirstInstancedonotoperateinaperfectworldwithinfinitetimeandtheluxuryofhindsight.Absentanycourtorder,AM,whowouldposearisktohimselfandothers,wouldbereleasedintothecommunitywithinfourdaysofthefirstapplication.InadmittingAMtowardship,theHighCourtwasthereforeproperlyexercisingjudicialdiscretioninanareainwhichitenjoyedconsiderablelatitudeandwherethechoicesavailableweresignificantlynarrowedbycircumstancesoutsidethecontroloftheCourt.ThesituationshouldhavebeenforeseeabletotheHSE,yettheapplicationwaslefttotheeleventhhourwhentheHighCourthadlittlechoicebuttoaccedetoit.

HavingundertakenadetailedanalysisoftheActandthewardshipprocedureasestablishedinthecasesofInreaWardofCourt[1996]2I.R.79,InreD[1987]1I.R.449andInreFD[2015]IESC83;[2015]1I.R.741,Mr. JusticeMacMenaminheldthatacourtmaymakesuchordersasarenecessary togiveeffect to thewardshipjurisdictionfortheprotectionoftherights,interestsandwelfareofthepersoninvolved,aswellasproperty.Itobservedthatthecourts’inherentjurisdictionmaybeinvokedonlywherenecessaryandwherefundamentalconstitutionalprinciplesareatstake.Mr.JusticeMacMenaminheldthatthe“parallel lines”betweenwardshipandtheActonthisoccasiondidmeetandthat,intheinstantcase,therequirementsforeitherjurisdictionweremet,providedthatadequateproceduralprotectionsweremadeavailabletoAMtovindicatehisrights.Mr.JusticeMacMenaminpointedoutthat,underwardship,thereisnobartoacourtadoptingproceduralsafeguardswhich“mirror”thoseoftheActandthattheHighCourthaddonesointhiscase. Tomake thewardship order, it was “necessary” to vindicate AM’s constitutional right to life andwelfareandtoprotectsuchrightsofothers.Itwasalso“appropriate”todosoastheneedwasimmediate.Where fundamental constitutional principles are concerned, the Court might in certain limitedcircumstancesexerciseitsinherentjurisdiction.

A wardship order under the Mental Health Acts may be made where it is“necessary” and “appropriate” to do so; but the courts will adopt a range ofproceduresundertheirwardshipjurisdictiontoensuresuchmeasuresalsoprotecttherightsofindividuals.


Kerins v. McGuinness & ors (No. 1) [2019] IESC 11 Judgment of the Supreme Court delivered on 27th February 2019

Thisappeal involvedtheintersectionofthepowersoftheOireachtasontheonehandtogovernitsactionsby itsown rules,and,on theotherhand, the responsibilitiesof theCourtsofensuring thatcitizens’constitutionalrightswereupheld.

TheAppellant in this casewas, at thematerial time, theChief ExecutiveOfficerof an independentcharitythatwasinreceiptofStatefunding.TheRespondentsweremembersofthePublicAccountsCommittee(‘the ‘Committee”’)whichsoughttoexaminethefundingprovidedtothecharitybytheState.Accordingly,theAppellantwasinvitedtoappearbeforetheCommitteeasawitness.Whilstnotlegally compelled to do so, the Appellant accepted the invitation and attended a meeting of theCommitteewhichwasheldinpublic.

Followingherappearancebefore theCommittee, theAppellantcontendedherphysicalandmentalhealthdeterioratedtosuchanextentthatsheattemptedtotakeherownlife.Herlegalrepresentativessubsequentlywrote to theCommittee informing them that shewouldnotbeattendingbefore theCommittee again. In reply, the Committee indicated that it would seek to invoke powers ofcompellabilityinsecuringtheAppellant’sattendance.

The Appellant subsequently initiated High Court proceedings seeking, amongst other things, adeclarationthattheCommitteelackedjurisdictiontoundertaketheexaminationoftheAppellant,thatthe Committee was biased towards her and a declaration that the procedures adopted by theCommitteetowardsherewereunfairsoastorenderitsproceedingsasunlawful.

A divisional compositionof theHighCourt (that is, theHighCourt sittingwith three judges) sat toconsidertheAppellant’sclaiminrespectoftheCommittee’sjurisdictionandfreedomofparliamentaryspeech.Itheldagainsther,statingthatitwouldbeabreachoftheseparationofpowersdoctrine,aslaiddownintheConstitution,forittoembarkonaconsiderationofthecomplaintsofunconstitutionalorunlawfulactivitymadebytheAppellantagainsttheCommittee.

TheAppellantsought,andwassubsequentlygranted,leavetoappealdirectlytotheSupremeCourt.Ingrantingleave,theCourtnotedthattheissuesraisedbytheAppellantrelatetothelegalsafeguardsavailabletowitnesseswhoappearbeforetheCommitteeinavoluntarycapacityvis-à-vistherole, ifany, the Court has in protecting such witnesses, in circumstances where issues of freedom ofparliamentaryspeech,separationofpowersandthesanctityofparliamentaryaffairsarise.

At the core of the Appellant’s claim was her assertion that she was invited to appear before theCommitteeononebasis,butthattheCommitteesubjectedhertoalineofquestionthatwasatvariancewiththeCommittee’sinvitation.

The sanctity of parliamentary privilege and procedure, as underpinned by theseparationofpowersdoctrineasenshrinedintheConstitution,isnotimmunefromjudicialscrutiny,incircumstanceswhereadeterminationwasmadebytheCourtsthat a citizen’s constitutional rights were not upheld by Parliament by its ownprocedures.


The Supreme Court considered whether it was open to it to consider whether a parliamentarycommittee,whichisconferredwithconstitutionallyenshrinedprivilegesandpowers,hadexceededitsremit. BothHouses of theOireachtas, and any committees set up by either House has, under theConstitution, the power to make its own rules and also privilege in respect of any utterances orpublicationsitmakes.

IfitwasopentoaCourttodeterminethatacommitteehadexceededitsremit,asubsequentquestionthatwouldhavetofall tobeconsideredwaswhether itcouldbeheldthatthatcommittee losttheprivilegesandimmunitieswhichtheConstitutionmightotherwiseconfer.

Whilst acknowledging the principle that an Oireachtas committee enjoys the same privileges andimmunitiesastheHouseitself,theCourtstatedthattheapplicabilityofthatprincipleinacasewhereit was contended that a committee acts outside the scope of its remit fell to be considered. TheprivilegesandimmunitiesconferredontheOireachtasbytheConstitutioncamewithresponsibilitiesincluding a responsibility to take reasonable steps to maintain the protection of a witnessesconstitutionalrights.

Furthermore,theCourtstated,thattheconstitutionalrightsofcitizensdonotdisappearonceinsidethegatesoftheParliamentbuildingbutratherareprimarilytobeprotectedwithintheboundsoftheOireachtasbytheOireachtasitself.ThisissupportedbytheconstitutionalentitlementoftheOireachtastoenforceitsrulesandstandingorderswithoutinterference.

The Court considered that the cumulative effects of the matters in controversy, finding that theCommitteeactedverysignificantlyoutsideofitstermsofreference(afindingthatwascriticallyalsomadebytheOireachtas’sownCommitteeforPrivilegesandProcedures).

In circumstances which led to a citizen accepting an invitation on one basis but being treatedsignificantly differently on attendance, togetherwith the absence of any action on the part of theOireachtastodealwiththesematters,theCourtfoundthecircumstanceswouldbeappropriateforjudicial intervention. The Court stated that a citizenwho is invited to attend before anOireachtascommitteeon aparticular basis is entitled to take the committee at itsword and that expectationextendstothecommitteeactinginamannerbroadlyconsistentwiththebasisonwhichtheinvitationisproffered.

Whilstacceptingthatadegreeofpracticalitymustprevailinrelationtominorortechnicaldeviations,thedeviationsthatwouldgiverisetoadeterminationthatacommitteehadactedunlawfullymustbesubstantialandsignificant.

TheSupremeCourt,inajudgmenttowhichallmemberswhoheardtheappealcontributed,allowedtheappealandconcluded that theCommitteehadactedunlawfullyby themanner inwhich ithadconducted its questioning of theAppellant. TheCourt concluded, inter alia, that itwould not be abreachoftheseparationofpowersfortheCourttodeclarethattheCommittee’sactionswereunlawfulin light of the fact that the committeewas actingoutsideof its terms and that theCommittee forPrivilegesandProcedureshadcometoadifferentview.

Notwithstanding the fact that it was open to the Court to declare that the Committee had actedunlawfully inamannerwhichaffected theAppellant, itheldovermakingsuchadeclarationuntil itheardfurthersubmissionsfromtheparties.TheCourtsubsequentlymadeadeclaration.(seeKerinsv.McGuinness&ors(No.2)(onpage84)).


O’Brien v. Clerk of Dáil Éireann & ors [2019] IESC 12 Judgment of the Supreme Court delivered on 5th March 2019

SimilartotheKerinsv.McGuinness(No.1)(“Kerins”)case,thisappealinvolvedaconsiderationofthelimits of the court’s jurisdiction in dealingwithmatters arising from the alleged infringement of acitizen’sconstitutionalrightsbytheOireachtas.WhilstsomeoftheconclusionsreachedintheKerinsdecisionhaveequalapplicationinthiscase,thereweresignificantdifferencesbetweenthefactualandlegalcircumstancesofbothcases.

TheAppellant,aprominentbusinessman,expressedconcernsaboutcertainstatementsmadeinDáilÉireannbytwodeputiesrelatingtohisfinancialaffairsthatwerethesubjectofapriorinterlocutoryinjunctionthatpreventedthepublicdisclosureofinformationinrelationtohisaffairs.AsutterancesmadeinDáilÉireannattractprivilegepursuanttoArticle15.10oftheConstitution,itwasopentothedeputiestouttertheseallegationsinrespectoftheAppellant’sfinancialaffairswithoutanythreatoflegal consequences. The Appellant subsequently complained to the second to eleventh namedRespondentsintheirrespectivecapacitiesasmembersoftheCommitteeonProcedureandPrivilegesofDáilÉireann(“the‘Committee’”)andthecaserelatestothemannerinwhichtheAppellant’scasewasdealtwithbytheCommittee.

TheAppellantwrotetotheCommitteecomplainingabouttheutterancesmadebybothDeputies.Inreply,theClerkofthatCommitteeinformedtheAppellantthattheutterancesbybothDeputiesdidnotbreachthestandingorders(internalrules)ofDáilÉireannanddidnotabuseparliamentaryprivilege.

TheAppellantinitiatedproceedingsintheHighCourtwhereinhesoughtanumberofreliefsincludingdeclarationsthattheutterancesmadebytheRespondentshadcausedorpermittedabreachoftheAppellant’s rights pursuant to Article 40.3.1 of the Constitution and also that the by causing orpermittingthesaidutterancestheRespondentswereguiltyofanunwarrantedinterferencewiththeoperationofthecourtsinapurelyjudicialdomain.

TheAppellant’scasewasdismissedintheHighCourt,whichreliedonthejudgmentoftheDivisionalHighCourtintheKerinscase,thusemphasisingthematerialoverlapbetweenatleastsomeoftheissueswhicharoseinboththeKerinscaseandtheinstantcase.

TheSupremeCourtsubsequentlyconsideredandgrantedleavetotheAppellantonthegroundsthatitwas argued that the High Court’s finding with respect to the non-justiciability of the Committee’sdeterminationswasinerroraswasitsconsequentrefusaltograntthereliefssoughtpertainingtotheCommittee’sdeterminations.

AgainstthebackdropoftheconclusionsreachedbytheCourtintheKerinscase,theCourtthenturnedto consider the issues raised in the instant caseandwhether theactionsof theCommittee canbeassessedastotheirlawfulnessinthecircumstancesofthiscase.AstheAppellantwasnolongerseekingaremedyfromtheCourtinrespectoftheutterancesmadeintheDáilchamber,rathertheAppellantsoughttochallengewhathappenedbeforetheCommittee.InlightofKerins,itwasnecessaryfortheCourt to determine whether it can properly be said that the Committee was carrying out aconstitutionalfunctionoftheHousesoftheOireachtassothatitanditsmemberswouldattractthesameprivilegesandimmunitiesthatwouldattachtotheHousesthemselvesonthebasisoftheanalysisconductedinKerins.

Judicialanalysisofadecisionofaparliamentarycommitteewouldamounttoanimpermissiblejudicialinferencetoconstitutionallyprotectedutterances.


The Court sought to reiterate, as it did in Kerins, that the constitutional rights of citizens do notdisappearatthegatesoftheParliamentbuilding.Rather,theconstitutionalarchitecturerequiresthat,totheextentthattowhichtheConstitutionitselfconfersimmunitiesinrespectofcourtproceedingsrelating to what happens within the Irish Parliament building, citizens must look to Parliamentthemselvestovindicatetheirrights,whereappropriate,resolvinganyquestionofbalancingrightsandobligationswhicharise.Furthermore,theCourtthensoughttodrawdistinctionsbetweentheinstantcaseandKerins,namelythattheutterancescomplainedofbytheAppellantweremadeinaHouseoftheOireachtasandthereforenonthequestionsconcerningthescopeofanyimmunityenjoyedbyacommittee,asdiscussedinKerins,hadanyapplicationtotheinstantappeal.

TheCourtconsidereditwasappropriatetocharacterisetheworkoftheCommittee,whenconsideringacomplaintofacitizenthattherightsofthecitizenconcernedhavebeeninfringedwithintheHouses,asconstitutingpartoftheconstitutionalfunctionoftheHousesincomplyingwiththeirobligationtoprotectthoserights.InassessingwhethertheworkoftheCommitteewasjusticiable,theCourtdrewadistinctionbetweentheworkoftheCommitteeinrespectofitsownmembersandwhenactingonfootof standing orders (which the Court considers as being non-justiciable) versus the Committeeconsidering a complaint by a citizen where the substance of the complaint concerned is that thecitizen’srightshavebeeninfringedbyaHouseorHouses.

The Court held that the Committee, in considering the Appellant’s complaint, was carrying out adelegatedfunctionoftheDáil inprotectingtheconstitutionalrightsofcitizensinrespectofmattersoccurringwithintheDáil.Thecourtwentontoanalysiswhethertheprivilegesand immunities thatattachtotheCommitteerenderthedecisionoftheCommitteenon-justiciable.TheCourtdeterminedthat in reviewing the decision of the Committee in such a case might result in an indirect orimpermissiblecollateralconsiderationoftheappropriatenessorotherwiseofutterancesmadeintheHouses.SuchacourseofactionwouldinfringeontheimmunityconferredonDeputiesinrespectoftheirutterancesintheHouseandwouldamounttoanimpermissibledeparturefromtheseparationofpowers.

IndistinguishingKerins,theCourtstatedthatinconsideringtheAppellant’scomplaintmayamount,insubstance,toanindirectorcollateralchallengetoutterancesmadeintheDáil.Asaresult,theCourtdetermined that the Appellant’s challenge to the decision of the Committee in this casewas non-justiciable.However,theCourtstressedthatsuchadeterminationdoesnotamounttotheCourtnotreachingadecisionastowhetherornotthedecisionsoftheCommitteemightbejusticiableinothercircumstances. In determining that a consideration of the Committee’s decision in respect of theAppellant would give rise to an indirect or collateral challenge to the utterances of the deputies,contrarytoArticle15.10oftheConstitution.TheonlypracticalconsequenceofasuccessfuloutcometoproceedingssuchasthiswouldbethatitmightleadtoareconsiderationbytheCommitteeofitsdecisioninrespectoftheAppellant’scomplaint.Ifthatweretoleadtoadifferentresult,thenacourtwouldhavebeen,at least indirectlyor collaterally, involved indealingwithutterancesmade in theHouses,acourseofactionthatwouldbecontrarytotheConstitution.

Inconclusion,theSupremeCourtdeterminedthattheHighCourtwascorrecttotreattheAppellant’sclaim,inthecircumstancesofthiscase,asbeingnon-justiciableandtodismisstheclaim.


Mohan v. Ireland [2019] IESC 18 Judgment of Mr. Justice O’Donnell delivered on 21st March 2019

TheAppellantsoughttochallengetheconstitutionalityofsection17(4B)oftheElectoralAct1997asinsertedby s. 42(c) of the Electoral (Amendment)(Political Funding) Act 2012, which significantly altered theconditionsonwhichStatefundingtopoliticalpartieswastobeawardedbyrequiringpoliticalpartiesseekingtoobtainStatefundingtoputforwardfornominationatleast30%femalecandidates,withthisfigurerisingincrementallyatsubsequentgeneralelections.TheAppellantwasamemberofapoliticalpartyandhadhopedtoobtainanominationfromhispartyforthe2016generalelection.Hewasoneofthreeprospectivecandidatesput forward and, of the three, hewas theonlymale.He received correspondence from theGeneralSecretaryofhispoliticalpartydirectingthatthecandidatetobeselectedmustbeawoman,andhewasthereforeexcludedfromconsiderationandafemalecandidatenominated.HisappealtotheHighCourtandtheCourtofAppealwereunsuccessfulonthegroundsthathedidnothavelocusstanditochallengetheimpugnedsection.

OnappealtotheSupremeCourttheAppellantarguedthathewasentitledtoestablishstandingonthreebases:thatofacandidatewhohadsoughtnomination;asamemberofapoliticalparty;andasacitizen.Underthesebases,theAppellantcontendedthathemetthetestforestablishingstandingasdeterminedinthe1980decisionoftheSupremeCourtinCahillv.Sutton[1980]I.R.269inthathis interestshad“beenadverselyaffected,orstandinrealorimminentdangerofbeingadverselyaffected,bytheoperationofthestatute.”Mr.JusticeO’DonnelldeliveredthejudgmentoftheCourt(towhichMr.JusticeMacMenamin,Ms.JusticeDunne,Mr.JusticeCharletonandMs.JusticeO’Malleyagreed.HavingregardtotheCahill,Mr.JusticeO’Donnellreiteratedthatthereisnoactispopularis(arightonthepartofacitizentochallengethevalidityoflegislationwithoutshowinganyeffectonhimorher,oranygreaterinterestthanthatofbeingacitizen)inIrishconstitutionallawandthattheIrishpositionisthatitisnecessarytoshowsomeadverseeffectontheplaintiff,eitheractualoranticipated.

Mr. JusticeO’Donnellnotedthepotential far-reachingconsequencesofadeterminationthatastatutoryprovisionisinvalidandthatsuchadeterminationisbluntinnatureandcanserveasasignificantdisruptionofthelegalorder.Therefore,thestepofpermittingachallengetotheconstitutionalvalidityofapieceoflegislationshouldnotbe taken lightly, simplybecausesomeonewishes,howevergenuinely, tohave thequestiondetermined,but rather shouldonlybe takenwhenapersoncan show that theyareadverselyaffectedinreality.Mr.JusticeO’Donnellreiteratedthatitisnecessarytoshowadverseeffect,orimminentadverseeffectupontheinterestsofarealplaintiff.HavingregardtothetestestablishedCahill,theCourtwasrequiredtodeterminewhatwaspreciselymeantbyaperson’sinterestsbeing“adverselyaffected”.Mr.Justice O’Donnell then sought to develop the distinction between a person’s ‘interests’ and a person’s‘rights’vis-à-visthechallengeaplaintiffseekstobring.Mr.JusticeO’DonnellfoundthatthefindingsoftheHigh Court fell short of establishing that the impugned section had no effect upon the appellant, hisinterests,orrights.Inconsideringwhetherthatfindingwasfataltotheappellant’sstanding,orwhetheritwassufficientthattheAppellantdemonstratethattheimpugnedsectionhadsomenon-trivialeffectonhisinterests,Mr.JusticeO’DonnellconcludedthattheAppellanthadshownsufficienteffectuponhimtobeentitledtochallengethevalidityoftheprovision.Accordingly,itwasnotnecessaryfortheCourttogofurtherandconsiderwhether,ifsuchstandingcouldnotbeestablished,theAppellantmightbeabletobringhimselfwithinoneoftheexceptionscontemplatedinCahillv.Sutton.

An individualseekingnominationtocontestageneralelectionfromhisaffiliatedpoliticalpartyelectionhadstandingtochallengelegislation,theeffectofwhichwastointroducegenderquotasinprescribingminimumnumbersoffemalecandidatesapoliticalpartymustputforwardfornominationinsuchelections.


Director of Public Prosecutions v. Mahon [2019] IESC 24 Judgment of Mr. Justice Charleton delivered on 11th April 2019

Thiscaseconcernsanappealbroughtbytheaccusedwhowasconvictedofthemanslaughterofhisstep-sonandsentencedtosevenyears imprisonment.AnappealbytheAppellantagainsthissentencetotheCourtofAppealonthegroundsthatitwastoosevereandinconsistentwiththeverdictdeliveredbythejurywasdismissed.TheAppellantappliedforandwasgrantedleavetoappealtotheSupremeCourtrelatingtoissuesastotheproperapproachtounderstandingtheverdictofajuryandproperapproachtosentencingthoseconvictedofmanslaughter.Mr.JusticeCharletondeliveredthejudgmentoftheCourt(towhichtheChiefJustice,Mr.JusticeClarke,Mr.JusticeMcKechnie,Ms.JusticeDunneandMs.JusticeO’Malleyagreed.

Relatingtothefirstissue,Mr.JusticeCharletonemphasisedthatinthemajorityofcases,themeaningofthejury’sverdictwillbeclearandthatitisseldomtwopossiblemeaningsofoneverdict.Mr.JusticeCharletonnoted that a jury’s verdict is protected against intrusion into the reasoning behind it. Relying on citedauthorities, in particular DPP v Piotrowski [2014] IECCA 17, Mr. Justice Charleton found that whileinterrogatingajuryastoitsreasoningshouldbeavoided,inveryrarecaseswhereajury’sverdictwouldbeambiguous without questioning, a trial judge may exercise his or her discretion and pose a question.Submissionsrelatingtothequestioningofthejuryshouldbeheardintheabsenceofthejuryandpriortotheaskingofsuchquestions.Ininterpretingajury’sverdict,itsdecisionmustberespected.Assuch,thetrialjudgemustinferanycorollaryimplicationsthatflowfromthejury’sfindings.Ifsuchfactualimplicationsareunclear,itisforthejudgetodecideonwhatfactsthejurycametoitsdecision.Whensentencing,thetrialjudgeshouldbeclearastothefactualnarrativeacceptedbythecourt.

Mr.JusticeCharletondiscussedsentencingguidelinesandmanslaughter,notingrecentsentencinginitiativesandhighlightstheusefulnessofsuchresearch.Itoutlinedtheproperapproachtosentencing,findingthataheadline sentence should be identified before the aggravating andmitigating factors are established tocome to a proportionate sentence. Given the varying levels of culpability involved in manslaughter,sentenceswerecategorisedintofourdiscretebands.Itcategorisedsentencesforthe‘worstcases’asbeingclosetoindistinguishableinculpabilityfrommurderandattractsentencesbetween15to20years,andarecapableofattractinglifesentences.‘Highculpability’casesattractsentencesofbetween10and15yearsandinvolveaggravatingfactors.‘Mediumculpability’casesresultinsentencesofbetween4and10years.Mr.JusticeCharletonfoundthatsuchcaseseitherlackaggravatingfactorsorinvolveaggravatingfactorslessseriousthaninthe‘higherculpability’range.Casesinvolving‘lowerculpability’involvesentencesofuptofouryearsimprisonmentandcanresultinfullysuspendedsentences.Suchcases,itfound,donotinvolveaggravatingcircumstancesandmayinvolvediminishedresponsibilityorextremeprovocation.Anumberofexamplesofcasesfailingwithineachbandareprovided.

Onthebasisofthisanalysis,Mr.JusticeCharletonfoundthatwhilethesentencingjudgeshouldhavegivenanaccountofthefactualcircumstancesacceptedbytheCourt,inabsenceofthis,theCourtcouldnottakeitsownviewastothecorrectsentencingnarrative,havingnotsatthroughthetrial.Assuch,theappealwasdismissedandthesentenceoftheAppellantwasupheld.

Whileinterrogatingajuryastoitsreasoningshouldbeavoided,inveryrarecaseswhereajury’sverdictwouldbeambiguouswithoutquestioning,atrialjudgemayexercise his or her discretion and pose a question. When sentencing formanslaughter, there are four categories into which the offence may fall and aheadlinesentenceshouldbeidentifiedbeforetheaggravatingandmitigatingfactorsareestablishedtocometoaproportionatesentence.


P. v. Judges of the Circuit Court [2019] IESC 26 Judgment of Mr. Justice O’Donnell delivered on 30th April 2019

TheAppellantwasateacherandwaschargedwithhistoricaloffencesallegedtohavebeencommittedbyhimagainstoneofhismalepupils,whowasagedbetweensixteenandseventeenandahalfyearsofageatthetimeoftheallegedoffences.However,theoffenceswereallegedtohaveoccurredatatimepriortothedecriminalisationofconsensualsexualactivitybetweenmalesbyvirtueoftheCriminalLaw(SexualOffences)Act 1993. The offence in question was gross indecency contrary to section 11 of the Criminal LawAmendmentAct1885,whichwasrepealedin1993andwhichwasfoundbytheSupremeCourtinNorrisv.TheAttorneyGeneral[1984]I.R.36nottobeunconstitutional.The Appellant initiated judicial review proceedings and sought to challenge the decision to try him,contendingthatsection11ofthe1885ActwasinconsistentwiththeConstitutionongroundsofvaguenessand/orbecauseofallegedimpermissiblediscriminationonthebasisofgender.HisclaimwasdismissedbytheHighCourtand,onappeal,bytheCourtofAppeal.OnappealtotheSupremeCourt,theAppellantsoughttochallengetheconstitutionalityofthelawunderwhichhewasintendedtobeprosecuted.Heassertedthatweresection11tobeusedtoprosecuteapersoninrespectofconsensualadultactivityconductedinprivate, such a prosecutionwould in all probability be impermissible for a variety of reasons, not leastrelatingtotheEuropeanConventiononHumanRights.NotwithstandingthedecisionoftheSupremeCourtreachedinNorris, theAppellant invitedthecourttofindthat, inthecircumstancespertainingtotoday’sstandards,section11ofthe1885Act(whichcontinuedinforcebyvirtueofsection27oftheInterpretationAct2005)wasnowunconstitutional.Thequestion,Mr. JusticeO’Donnell acknowledged,waswhat standardswere tobeapplied in assessingwhetheritisnotconstitutionallypermissibletoprosecutetheAppellant.InparticularMr.JusticeO’Donnellconsideredwhether itwaspermissible fortheAppellanttoseektorelyontoday’sstandardsconcerningsexualactivitybetweenconsentingmaleadultsbutalsotorelyonthepreviousregimeinrespectoftheageofsexualconsentwhichwasapplicableatthetimeoftheeventsallegedtoconstitutetheoffenceinthiscase.On the consent issue, amajorityof theCourtheld that consent isnotanelementof the relevantoffence.OnthequestionofwhethertheAppellanthadthenecessarylocusstanditobringtheappeal,Mr.Justice O’Donnell concluded that the Appellant had standing to challenge the constitutionality of thelegislation but based only on the question ofwhether such unconstitutionality had been established inrespectofanallegedoffencewithasixteen-year-oldsomefortyyearsago.Onthetemporalissue,Mr.JusticeO’Donnellstatedthatanycurrentprosecutionforhistoricaloffencesmustbeviewedbytheconstitutionalstandardapplicableat the timeof trial,butnothing in theConstitution required theapplicationof suchmechanicalandformalrulesastoputanysuchoffencesbeyondthereachofprosecution.

Byathreetotwomajority,theSupremeCourtdismissedtheappeal.Forthemajority,Mr.JusticeO’Donnell(withwhomMr.JusticeMacMenaminandMs.JusticeDunneconcurred)concludedthattheConstitutionisnot, or should not be, such a blunt instrument that exercising the invalidity or even precluding theunconstitutional use of legislation should come at the price of invalidating even those portions of thecriminalcodewhichseektoprohibitconductwhichisregardedtodayasjustas,ifnotmore,seriousthanitwaswhentheprovisionwasfirstenacted.TheConstitutiondidnotprecludetheAppellant’strial.AminorityoftheCourt(Mr.JusticeClarke.andMs.JusticeO’Malley)wereoftheviewthattheAppellant’sprosecutionshould be prohibited.Mr. Justice Clarke, Chief Justice, arrived at this conclusion on the basis that it isimpermissibleundertheConstitutionfortheDirectorofPublicProsecutionstoprosecutetheAppellantinrespectoftheallegedoffences,havingregardtothefactthatthecomplainantwas,atthetimeoftheallegedoffences,ofanagewhichwasgenerallyconsideredtobeoneatwhichamalecouldconsenttosexualactivityandthattheAppellant’sprosecutiontodayforsuchanoffencewouldbeinconsistentwiththeConstitutionasitnowstands.

Prosecutionforallegedhistoricalsexualoffencescanproceed,notwithstandingfactthatstatutoryprovisionsunderpinningoffencehadbeenrepealed.


Ellis v. Minister for Justice and Equality & ors [2019] IESC 30

Judgment of Mr. Justice Charleton delivered on 15th May 2019

Thisappealconcernedachallengetotheconstitutionalvalidityofs.27A(8)oftheFirearmsAct1964,as amended (“s. 27A(8)”). This provision required that amandatoryminimum sentenceof 5 years’imprisonmentbeimposedwhereanindividualisconvictedofasecondorsubsequentspecifiedoffenceinrelationtothepossessionoruseoffirearms.

In 2012, theAppellantwas chargedwith twooffences, onebeing a firearmsoffence contrary to s.27A(1) of the 1964 Act. The sentencing judge heard evidence of the previous convictions of theAppellant,includingapreviousrelevantconvictionforafirearmsoffence,andadjournedsentencing.Inlightofhissuccessfuldrugrehabilitation,thetrialimposedafive-yearsentence,fullysuspended,inrespectofthefirearmsoffence.

TheDirectorofPublicProsecutions(“DPP”)soughtareviewofthissentencefromtheCourtofAppealonthegroundsofundueleniency,arguingthatthetrialjudgewasnotentitledtosuspendthesentenceof five years imposed on the firearms offence, under the provisions of s. 27A(8). This appeal wasadjourned following the appellant’s commencement of plenary proceedings challenging theconstitutionalityofs.27A(8).ThischallengewasunsuccessfulintheHighCourtinadecisionwhichwasupheldbytheCourtofAppeal.Intheappealinthecriminalproceedingswhichwassubsequentlyheard,theCourtofAppealheldthat,asaresultoftheoperationofs.27A(8),thetrialjudgewasnotentitledtosuspendanypartofthefiveyearsentence.

Onappeal,Ms.JusticeFinlayGeoghegan(withwhomMr.JusticeMcKechnie,Mr.JusticeMacMenaminandMs. JusticeO’Malley agreed) declared s. 27A(8) to be unconstitutional. In doing so, the CourtdistinguishedbetweenafixedpenaltyprescribedbytheOireachtasforthecommissionofaspecifiedoffence,whichappliestoallpersonsconvictedofsuchanoffence,andamandatorypenaltyprescribedonlytoa limitedclassofpersonsconvictedofanoffence.Theformer,whichissubjecttoarationalrelationshipbetweenthepenaltyandtherequirementsofjusticewithregardtothepunishmentofthespecifiedoffence,formspartofthelaw-makingfunctionoftheOireachtasandisnotinbreachoftheseparationofpowers.Thelatter,atissueintheseproceedings,determinesthepenaltytobeimposedbyreferencetoafactwhichiseitheronecharacteristicoftheoffender,namelythathehasoneormoreprior relevant convictions, or is one of the circumstances in which the offence of conviction wascommitted,namelythatitisthesecondtimeormorethattheoffenderhascommittedthisoffenceorasimilarrelevantoffence.

Ms.JusticeFinlayGeogheganfoundthattheimpositionbythelegislatureofamandatorypenaltyonthis limited class of persons convicted of an offence was an incursion into the selection of theappropriatesentenceinaccordancewithlawfortheparticularoffencecommittedbyanindividual.Ms.Justice FinlayGeoghegan found that this exercise forms part of the administration of justice to beconductedbythecourtsunderArticle34oftheConstitutionandisalsopartoftherightofanindividualtoafairtrialpursuanttoArticle38.1,andthusitinvolvedanimpermissiblebreachoftheseparationofpowers on the part of the Oireachtas. Ms. Justice Finlay Geoghegan granted a declaration ofunconstitutionalityinrespectofs.27A(8)andorderedthatthecriminalappealbere-enteredbeforetheCourtofAppeal.

It is an impermissible breach of the separation of powers for the legislature toimposeamandatoryminimumsentenceonalimitedclassofpersonsconvictedofanoffence.


B.S. & R.S. v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal & ors [2019] IESC 32

Judgment of Ms. Justice Dunne delivered on 22nd May 2019

TheAppellants,whoweretwoAlbaniancitizenswhopreviouslylivedinKosovo,soughtvariousreliefsbywayofjudicialreviewagainstthedecisionoftheRefugeeAppealsTribunaltoupholdadecisionoftheMinistertotransferthemtotheUnitedKingdom,theMemberStatecompetentpursuanttoArticle12ofRegulationEUNo.604/2013(DublinIIIRegulation)forassessingtheirasylumapplications.ItwasnotindisputethattheAppellantshadfailedtoprovideatruthfulaccountofthecircumstancesoftheirarrival in Ireland,and that theUnitedKingdomwas thecompetentMemberStateaccording to theDublinIIIRegulationcriteria.

ThemainargumentoftheAppellantswasthatthedecisionoftheMinisterwasunlawfulasitwasbasedonaninformationrequestmadetotheauthoritiesoftheUnitedKingdomwhichwasnotinaccordancewiththerequirementssetoutinArticle34ofDublinIIIRegulation.Itwasalsoarguedthatthetransferofdataoftheapplicants,inparticular,oftheirfingerprints,wasunlawfulunderdataprotectionlaw,because it did not have a legitimate basis as the information request on which it was based wasunlawful.TheMinisterdidnotdisputethatthe informationrequest,whichhadonlystatedthattheappellants had made asylum applications, had failed to explicitly identify the reason why theinformationwasbeingsought,butitwasarguedthattherequestwas,insubstance,valid.

TheHighCourt,inadecisionwhichwasupheldbytheCourtofAppeal,foundthattherewasnobreachoftherequirementssetout inArticle34and,thus,ofdataprotectionlaw.Eveniftherewassuchabreach,itwasnotaninfringementoftherightsoftheAppellantswhichwouldgiverisetoacauseofaction.

Ms. JusticeDunne,withwhomtheothermembersof theCourtagreed,withMr. JusticeCharletonwriting a separate concurring judgment) upheld the finding of the courts below that therewas nobreachofArticle34ofDublinIIIRegulationand,thus,ofdataprotectionlaw.However,theCourtwasoftheviewthatadefinitiveanswertothequestionofwhethertheappellantshadrightsderivingfromArticle34ofDublinIIIRegulationwasbestlefttoacaseinwhichtherehasbeenabreachofArticle34.Indismissingtheappeal,theCourtheldthatArticle34,whichappearsinasectionoftheRegulationheaded:"AdministrativeCo-Operation",doesnotrequiretheMinistertogivealengthyaccountofthegroundsforseekinginformationandthatitwasnotnecessarythattheMinistersetoutexplicitlythatthe information request was being made because the appellants had transited from the UnitedKingdomtoIreland,whichiswhathappensinthemajorityofcases.Itwasrelevant,inthiscase,thattheBritishauthoritieshadnotrequestedfurtherinformation.Ms.JusticeDunnealsofoundthatArticle34ofDublinIIIRegulationdidnotrequireapriorrequestfromtheBritishauthoritiesfortheMinistertoprovidethemwiththeAppellants’fingerprints,whichwerelawfullytakenundertheprovisionsoftheRefugeeAct1996.

AdecisionoftheMinisterforJusticeandEqualitytotransfertheAppellantstotheUnitedKingdomdidnotbreachtheirdataprotectionrequirementsunderArticle34oftheDublin IIIRegulation.UnderArticle34,"AdministrativeCo-Operation"doesnotrequiretheMinistertogivealengthyaccountintheinformationnoticeofthegroundsforseekinginformation,orspecifythattheinformationrequestwasbeingmadebecause theAppellants had transited from theUnitedKingdom to Ireland,whichiswhathappensinthemajorityofcases.


Bates & anor. v. Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food & ors [2019] IESC 35

Judgment of Mr. Justice MacMenamin delivered on 23rd May 2019

TheAppellantsoughttoreviewa2018judgmentoftheCourt([2018]IESC5)inwhichithaddismissedanappeal against a judgment of the High Court which held that the Minister’s officials incorrectly andnegligentlyadvisedtherespondentsinthatcasethatitwaslawfultofishinanareaoftheBayofBiscay.TheywerelaterarrestedbytheFrenchauthoritiesandsustainedlimitedlossesforwhichtheHighCourtawardedthem€49,600 indamages. Inseekingtoreviewthe2018 judgment,theAppellantclaimedthattherehadbeenanincorrectnarrativeofeventswhichwerecentraltotheCourt’sreasoningindismissingtheappeal.

InNashv.DPP[2017]IESC51,theSupremeCourtheldthatintherareinstanceofanapplicationtoreviewa Supreme Court judgment, a moving partymust carefully assess the nature of the alleged error, andexamine whether it is trivial or inconsequential, whether it may be of some significance as to simpleaccuracy,orwhetheritmightbesaidtobefundamental.Acourtmustconsiderthecauseandeffectofanyerrorandiftheconductorsubmissionsofapartyorpartiescontributedtowhatoccurred.Thereisaveryhighthresholdofafundamentaldenialofjustice.

In theoriginal appeal inBates, theCourtwas invited to consider theHighCourt judgment on a factualnarrativecontainedinwrittenandoralsubmissions.TheCourtwasnotdirectedtorelevantpartsofhighlymaterialevidenceintheHighCourt.Theoralandwrittensubmissionsgaveaninaccurateaccountoftheevidenceincludingthesequenceofevents.TheMinisterclaimedanincorrectnarrativeinthefindingthattherehadbeenproximateassurancesgivenbytheMinister’sofficials.Heassertedthatthiswasnotpartofthe respondents’ case.Mr. JusticeMacMenamin delivered the judgment of the Court (withwhomMs.JusticeDunneandMr.JusticeCharletonagreed).

Mr.JusticeMacMenaminengagedinanextensivereviewoftheevidencebeforetheHighCourtandthetranscriptsofproceedingsinthatforumandintheoriginalappeal.Onareviewofthetranscript,towhichno sufficient referencewasmade in theoriginal appeal,Mr. JusticeMacMenamin found that therewasampleevidencetosustainthefindingsoftheSupremeCourtonappeal.Mr.JusticeMacMenaminrejectedtheMinister’scontentionthattheCourthadin2018givenanincorrectversionofeventsandnotedthat,infact,thewrittensubmissionsfrombothsideswereincorrectandmisleadinginmaterialrespects.

Mr.JusticeMacMenaminemphasisedthatanyfactualnarrativecontainedinwrittensubmissionsmustbeentirelyaccurate.Ifanerrorisdetected,apartymustnotifyitsopponentandthecourtoftheerrorinatimelyway.Materialinsubmissionsmustnotcontainfactuallyerroneous,ambiguous,unclearorinaccuratesummariesofeventssaidtohaveoccurredinacourtoffirstinstance,particularlywheretheappealisonapointoflawandwherethetranscriptisnotreferredtoinanydetail.Oralsubmissionsastofactmustbeaccurate.Whileobservingthattherewasnosuggestionofmalafidesonthepartofthelawyers,Mr.JusticeMacMenaminheldthatinthisinstancetheseobligationswerenotfulfilledandthattheoriginaldecisionoftheSupremeCourthadafirmbasisintheevidence.Mr.JusticeMacMenaminconcludedthattheapplicationeffectively,andonanerroneousbasis,soughttopersuadetheCourttoreopenthemeritsofthecase.TheCourt had given theparties ampleopportunity to reconsider their positions prior to thedelivery of thejudgment.Onreviewoftheevidence,theapplicationwasdismissed.

In circumstances where the Supreme Court had not been directed to relevantevidenceintheHighCourtandfollowingareviewoftheevidencewhichwasbeforetheHighCourt,therewasampleevidencetosustainthefindingsoftheSupremeCourtonappealinanapplicationtoreviewaSupremeCourtdecision.


Sweeney v. Ireland [2019] IESC 39

Judgment of Mr. Justice Charleton delivered on 28th May 2019

S.9(1)oftheOffencesAgainsttheStateAct1998mandatesthatpersonswithinformationrelatingtoaseriousoffencewhichtheyknowtobeorbelievemightbeofmaterialassistanceinapprehending,prosecuting,orconvictinganotherpersonforthesaidseriousoffencemustdiscloseittoamemberofAnGardaSíochána:tofailtodosowithoutreasonableexcuseisanoffence.ThelateThomasWardhadbeenkilledinAugust,2007,andtherespondenttotheappeal,Mr.MichaelSweeney,hadmadenorelevantcommentswheninterviewedundercautionbetweenAugustandSeptember,2007.HewasarrestedinNovember,2007,andinterviewedonfouroccasionssubjecttothesamecaution.Hesaidnothingaboutthemurderoranythingthatmightbeknowntohimaboutthemurder.TherewasnoevidencetochargeMrSweeneywithmurder,buthewaschargedwithfailuretodiscloseinformationabout a very serious crime.Hewas returned for trial to SligoCircuitCriminalCourton the30thofJanuary,2014. Byorder,datedthe21stofFebruary,2018,theHighCourtdeclareds.9(1)(b)tobeunconstitutional.

Mr.JusticeCharleton(withwhomMr.JusticeO'Donnell,Mr.JusticeMacMenamin,Ms.JusticeDunneand Ms. Finlay Geoghegan agreed) allowed the appeal. Mr. Justice Charleton considered,comprehensively,thelegalbackgroundofthebalancebetweenobligationstotheState,andsocietyasawhole,andtherightnottobeharassedorcoercedbytheState.Tomerelywitnessacrimeisnotanoffence;participationinacrimerequiresthatonegivesomeaidinitscommission.However,thereislegislationforinstanceswherebypersonsinIrelandmustdiscloseinformation,suchasmattersrelatingtothesexualdefilementofchildren,forexample.Furthermore,thejudgmentreferencedArticle9.3ofBunreacht na hÉireann and analysed the philosophy underpinning the State’s justification forcompellingitscitizenstoco-operateincertaincircumstancesalongsideEuropeancaselaw.Oneareawherethequestionsraisedinthiscaseoccurveryfrequentlyisthatofterrorism-relatedoffences,andthe judgment explored the regimes in the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia requiring thedisclosureofcertaininformationincriminalinvestigations.

Inbygonetimes,commonlawsovereignsusedtheoffenceofmisprisionoffelonytocompelsubjectsandcitizenstoassist inapprehendingwrongdoers: itstillexists intheUnitedStates,buthasgreatlyfallenoutofuseorhasbeenabolished (as inEnglandandWales)due toanadhoc jurisprudentialdevelopmentthatresultedinvagueness.Onthepointofvagueness,theoffenceinthiscasewasheldto,ultimately,notbesovagueastomakeituncertainwhenconsideredinlightofcaselawwherelawdivergesfromcommonspeech inthe languageused. Mr. JusticeCharletonheldthats.9(1)(b)wascapableofclearconstructioninthisregard,andthuswasnotsovagueastobeuncertain.Onthefactsofthiscase,MrSweeneywaswarnedthathedidnothavetosayanythingself-incriminating,andchosefurthertosaynothingatall.S.9(1)(b)doesnotrequirethatoneincriminateoneself,andsotherightto silence is not interferedwith. However, the right to silence is not absolute, including under ananalysis in linewith theEuropeanConventiononHumanRights. In short, s.9(1)(b) is capableofaconstitutional constructionandprotects the right to silenceby itswording. TheCourt reversed theorderoftheHighCourtdeclaringitunconstitutional.

Personshavinginformationaboutthecommissionofaseriouscrimewhoknowor believe that disclosing such may be of material assistance to An GardaSíochánaareobligedtodosoiftheylackreasonableexcuseunderpenalty.Therightstosilenceandtonotself-incriminatearenotaffected,butneitheraretheyabsolute.


Kerins v. McGuinness & ors (No. 2) [2019] IESC 42

Judgment of the Supreme Court delivered on 29th May 2019

This judgment was delivered subsequent to the substantive judgment of the Court in Kerins v.McGuinness (No. 1). As noted in that principal judgment, two matters were left over for furtherconsideration,namelywhether itwouldbeappropriate to joinDáilÉireannasadefendant in theseproceedings,andwhethertheactionsoftheparliamentarycommittee,thePublicAccountsCommittee(the‘Committee’),lookedatasawhole,canbesaidtohavebeeninsignificantbreachofthetermsofthe invitation issuedby it to theAppellant.After theCourtdelivered itsprincipal judgment, furtherwrittensubmissionsweredirectedandanoralhearingwasheld.Inrespectofthefirstmatter–whetheritwouldbeappropriatetojointheDáilasadefendantintheproceedings–noobjectionwasmadeinsubstitutingtheindividualmembersoftheCommitteefortheClerkoftheDáil.Whilstunusualforanewpartytobejoinedtoproceedingsatsuchalatestage,itwasagreedthatthissubstitutionwouldbesimplyatechnicalquestionofspecifyingthepreciseidentityofthecorrectdefendantratherthanseekingtojoinanewparty.TheCourtmadeanordersubstitutingthe Dáil for the relevant individual defendants with the exception of the State entities. The CourtexpresslystatedthatthejoiningofaHouseorHousesofParliamentasadefendantinsuchproceedingsdoes not alter the justiciability of any particular claim. The boundaries of the limitations of thejurisdictionoftheCourtwereanalysed intheprincipal judgmentandthatofO’Brienv.ClerkofDáilÉireann.Inrelationtothesecondmatter–whetheritcanbeconcludedontheevidencethattheCommitteeactedunfairlyinthesenseidentifiedintheprincipaljudgment–inthatitsactions,takenasawhole,canbesaidtohaveinvolvedinvitingacitizentoattendbeforetheCommitteeononebasis,butthatitactedsignificantlydifferentoutsidethetermsoftheinvitationoncethecitizenattended.Prior to engaging in an analysis, theCourt recalled the central factorswhich it had identified in itsprincipal judgment that would give rise to a situation where it would be appropriate to grant adeclaration. These included, amongst others, the fact that the Committee had acted significantlyoutsideitstermsofreferenceandthatithadactedunfairlyindepartingsignificantlyfromthetermsoftheinvitationitextendedtotheAppellant.TheCourtnotedthatofthefourcentralfactorsitidentified,eachwerecapableofbeingremediedbytheHousesofParliamentthemselves.Whilstnotingthatthetermsofany invitation issued toacitizen toattendbeforeacommittee isamatter for the invitingcommittee,thereisnolegalbarriertoacitizenansweringquestionswhichgobeyondthescopeofaninvitation.TheCourtalsonotedthattheconductofthebusinessofaparliamentarycommitteeisamatterforParliament.Accordingly,itisforParliamenttospecify,initsrulesandorders,thewayinwhichbusinessistobeconductedand,inparticular,theroleandpowersoftheChairofanycommitteetoensurethecommitteeconcernedoperatesproperlywithinthescopeofbothitsremitandofanyinvitationissuedto an attending citizen. In particular, the Court had to consider the proper characterisation of therelevanthearinginthecontextoftheinvitationissuedbyCommitteetotheAppellant.TheCourtnotedthatitwasnotthetoneofthequestioningwhichneededtobeanalysedbutratherthesubstanceoftheactionsofthecommitteeasawhole.

Actionsofaparliamentarycommittee,asawhole,wereunlawfulincircumstanceswhereawitnesswasinvitedtoappearononebasisbutthecommitteeactedonasignificantlydifferentbasiscontrarytotherightofthewitnesstofairproceduresandnaturaljustice.


TheCourthadregardtotheletterofinvitationissuedtotheAppellantandalsotoapreviousletter.Inreviewing the correspondence, theCourt didnot interpret the invitation in themanner inwhich itwouldinterpretlegislation.Rather,theCourtnotedthattheinvitationlettershouldbereadincontextwiththepreviousletter.TheCourt’sviewwasthatareasonablereaderwouldunderstandthattheoralhearingwastobeconfinedtothemattersspecifiedinthelaterletterbutthatthescopeoftheenquiryunderthoseheadingsmightbeinformedbythecontentoftheearlierletter.TheCourtalsostatedthatit was not concerned with whether the Committee was acting within its remit under its terms ofreference,butratherwhetheritwentsignificantlyoutsidethetermsofitsinvitationtotheAppellant.Againstthisbackdrop,theCourtexaminedwhatactuallytranspiredattheoralhearing.Reiteratingwhatwas said in the principal judgment, the Court stated that the assessment inwhich itwas engagedinvolvedthepropercharacterisationoftheactionsoftheCommitteeasawhole,byreferencetotheinvitation issued to the Appellant and the subsequent conduct of the hearing. This involved anassessmentof anyparticular aspect of Committee’s actionswhich couldbe taken to represent theactionsofthecommitteeoverall.Inaddition,anoverallassessmentofwhatactionswereactuallytakenwasalsorequired.Basedonanassessmentofpertinentmaterialevidencewhichwasbeforeit,theCourtconcludedthattheCommitteeactedbroadlyinunisonontherelevantissues.TheChairdidnotseektopreventanylineofquestioningandnoothermemberof theCommitteeraisedany issuesof that type.Further,therewereanumberofstatementstotheeffectthattheCommitteewasactingonanagreedcourseofaction.However,theCourtnotedthatanairofrealityhastobebroughttoanyassessmentofthistypeundertakenandconsideredthatat least threemembersof theCommittee, including itsChair,engagedinquestioningwhichwentsignificantlyoutsidethescopeofthatinvitation.Against the foregoing backdrop, the Court determined that it was appropriate to characterise theactions of Committee as a whole as being such that it could be said that to have condoned thesignificantdeparturebyatleastthreedeputiesfromthetermsoftheinvitationissuedtotheAppellant,who extended to include reference to her salary. On that basis, the Court concluded that, on theevidence,itisappropriatetocharacterisetheactionsofCommitteeasawholeasbeingsuchthattheAppellantwasinvitedtoattendbeforeitononebasisbuttheCommitteethenactedonasignificantlydifferentbasisoncesheattended.TheCourtultimatelymadeadeclarationtotheeffectthatbyconductingapublichearinginamannerwhichwassignificantlyoutsideofitstermsofreferenceandwhichalsodepartedsignificantlyfromtheterms of an invitation by virtue of which a citizenwas requested to attend, the Committee actedunlawfully.Ingrantingthisdeclaration,theCourtwascriticalofthefactthat“acitizenhadbeeninvitedtoattendononebasisbutthehearinghadbeenconductedonasignificantlydifferentbasis”.


F. v. Mental Health Tribunal & ors [2019] IESC 44

Judgment of Ms. Justice Dunne delivered on 29th May 2019

ThiscaseconcernedtheinvoluntarydetentionofapersonforreasonsconnectedtotheirmentalhealthinaccordancewiththeMentalHealthAct2001(“the2001Act”).Underthe2001Act,involuntarydetentionissubjecttoanumberofrulesandprocesses, includingthatdetentionis initiallyauthorisedintermsofan“admissionorder”andmaythenberenewedby“renewalorders”.Thisdecisionwasconcernedwiththe2001ActpriortotheamendmentsbroughtaboutbytheMentalHealth(RenewalOrders)Act2018.

TheAppellantbroughtanapplicationforthejudicialreviewofadecisionoftheCircuitCourtwhichdeclinedtohearanappealagainsthercontinued involuntarydetentionon thegrounds thather initialadmissionorderhadexpiredandbecamespentandnotenoughtimehadpassedfortherenewalordertobeappealed.TheHighCourtfoundthatanadmissionorderwasreplacedbyarenewalorder,whichmeantthats.19(1)ofthe2001ActconfinedthejurisdictionoftheCircuitCourttoconsiderappealsincircumstanceswherethepatientwassufferingfromamentaldisorderatthetimeoftheappealandthatitdidnotconferjurisdictiontoconsiderthecorrectnessoftheoriginaldecisionoftheMentalHealthTribunalinrelationtoanadmissionorderwhereithadexpired.

Onappeal,theCourtofAppealconcludedthats.19(1)ofthe2001Actmustbereadasifthewords“…onthegroundsthatheorsheisnotsufferingfromamentaldisorder”were“…onthegroundsthatheorsheisorwassufferingfromamentaldisorder”.ItalsoheldthatthebasisforthedetentionofanApplicantatalltimesremainstheoriginaladmissionorderandthatarenewalordermerelyprolongsorextendsthevalidityoftheadmissionorder.OnappealtotheSupremeCourt,Ms.JusticeDunne(withwhomMr.JusticeClarke,Mr.JusticeMcKechnie,Mr.JusticeMacMenaminandMs.JusticeFinlayGeogheganagreed)emphasisedthatitisimportanttoensurethatapersonwhoisinvoluntarilydetainedbyreasonofmentalillnessisabletoavailofalegalmechanismtoconfirmthattheproceduresleadingtotheirdetentionhavebeencarriedoutappropriatelyandthatthecontinueddetentionofthepersonconcernedissubjecttoscrutinyandthattheprovisionsofthe2001Actaredesignedtoprovidethenecessarysafeguards.Ms.JusticeDunneaffirmedtheordermadebytheCourtofAppealbutdidnotagreewithitsinterpretationofs19(1)ofthe2001Actthatthewords“isorwas”sufferingfromamentaldisordercanbereadintotheAct.Ms.JusticeDunnewassatisfiedthat,althoughanadmissionorderexpiresafter21days,theperiodoftheadmissionordermaybeextendedbyarenewalorderandthatasaresulttheadmissionorderitselfisextended.

Forthatreason,Ms.JusticeDunnefoundthatthematterwasnotmootwhenitcamebeforetheCircuitCourtandthe issueofthevalidityoftheadmissionordercouldhavebeenconsideredatthatstage.Ms.JusticeDunneindicatedthatthisdidnotprecludethefactthatgiventhatafurtherrenewalorderhadbeenmade,thatordercouldsubsequentlygiverisetoanappealinaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftheActandthatitshouldbeclearlyunderstoodthattheCourt,incarryingoutanexamination,isboundtoconsidertheuptodatesituationofthepatientandwhether,atthetimeofthehearingbeforetheCircuitCourt, thepatientisorisnotthensufferingfromamentaldisorder.Ms.JusticeDunnefoundthatthefocusshouldhavebeenonthethensituationoftheAppellantandthatthepositionatthatstagequitesimplywasthattheadmissionorderwasextant.Therefore,therewasnothingtoprecludetheCircuitCourtfromembarkingonahearingatthatstageinrelationtothethenpositionofthepatient.

While an admission order authorising the detention of an individual under theMentalHealthAct2001expiresafter21days,theperiodoftheadmissionordermaybeextendedbyarenewalorderand,asaresult,theadmissionorderitselfisextended.Thetrialcourt,incarryingoutanexamination,isboundtoconsidertheup-to-datesituationofthepatient.


A.P. v. Minister for Justice and Equality [2019] IESC 42

Judgment of Mr. Justice O’Donnell delivered on 29th May 2019

TheAppellantwasanIraniannationalwhoenteredIrelandin1989andwasgrantedrefugeestatusin1991.TheAppellantinitiatedjudicialreviewproceedingsseekinganorderofcertiorariinrespectofadecisionoftheRespondentrefusingtograntacertificateofnaturalisationonthebasisthathecouldnothaveconfidenceintheAppellant’sdeclarationoffidelitytotheIrishStateandhisundertakingtofaithfullyobservethelawsoftheStateandtoprotectitsdemocraticvalues.Inaddition,theRespondentwasnotsatisfiedthattheAppellantmetthe‘goodcharacter’conditionasspecifiedinsection15(1)(b)of the IrishNationality andCitizenshipAct1956, asamended.Thedecisionof theRespondentwaspredicated on a report that was prepared by his office on the basis of information regarding theAppellantwhichwas received on a strictly confidential basis. The Respondent contended that thatinformationcouldnotbedisclosedonthebasisthattheinterestoftheStateinprotectingitssecurityandinternationalrelationsoutweighedtheinterestsoftheApplicantinknowingtherationalebehindtheRespondent’sdecisiontorefusetograntacertificateofnaturalisation.TheAppellantsoughtanorderofmandamusrequiringtheRespondenttodisclosethegistoftheinformationwhichformedthebasisoftheRespondent’srefusal.

TheHighCourtdismissedhisapplication for judicial reviewand theAppellantwasgranted leave toappealdirectlytotheSupremeCourt.

Mr. Justice O’Donnell (with whomMs. Justice Dunne,Ms. Justice O'Malley andMs. Justice, FinlayGeoghegan J agreed, with the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Clarke delivering a separate concurringjudgment),applyingthedecisioninMallakv.MinisterforJustice[2012]3I.R.297,allowedtheappealandquashedthedecisionoftheRespondentrefusingtograntacertificateofnaturalisation.InMallak,theSupremeCourtheldthattheentitlementoftheMinistertomakeadecisioninhisorherabsolutediscretiondidnotmeanthatheorshewasnotobligedtoprovideareason.Accordingly,therewasanonusondecision-makerstoactfairlyandrationally,meaningthattheymustnotmakedecisionswithoutprovidingreasons.

Mr. Justice O’Donnell held that it had not been demonstrated that the process followed by theRespondent indetermining theextent towhich itwaspermissible, consistentwith legitimate Statesecurityinterestgrounds,todiscloseinformationtotheAppellantinterferedwithhisentitlementtoknowthereasons for theRespondent’sdecisiontotheminimumextentnecessarytoprotect thoselegitimateStateinterests.

Mr.JusticeO’Donnellnoted,obiter,thatthereisnotinplaceintheIrishjurisdictionamechanism,suchasaspecialadvocateprocedure,bywhichdocumentsoverwhichexecutiveprivilege isassertedonnationalsecuritygrounds,canbemadeavailabletoanaffectedperson.TheChiefJustice,Mr.JusticeClarke stated that it would at least be possible to put in place an enhanced process by which anindependentassessmentcouldbemadeastowhetheranyversionoftheinformationcouldbeprovidedinawaywhichwouldnotaffectStateintereststotheextentthatdisclosureshouldnotberequiredatall.ThecasewasremittedbacktotheRespondenttomakeafurtherdecision,followingonfromanenhanced process which conforms with the principles identified in the judgment of Mr. JusticeO’Donnell.

TherefusaloftheMinisterforJusticeandEqualitytoprovidereasonstoanapplicantseekingnaturalisationonthebasisofnationalsecuritygroundswasunjustified.


Data Protection Commissioner v. Facebook Ireland Ltd. & anor [2019] IESC 46

Judgment of the Mr. Justice Clarke, Chief Justice, delivered on 31st May 2019

The proceedings originated following the 2015 judgment of the CJEU in Schrems v. Data ProtectionCommission (Case C-362/14), whichmade findings as to the duty of the national supervisory authoritycharged with data protection in eachMember State to initiate legal proceedings in order to raise anyobjectiontothevalidityofanEUinstrument,sothatthenationalcourtcouldreferthemattertotheCJEUifitsharedthedoubtsconcerned.Asaresult,theDataProtectionCommissionerinitiatedtheseproceedingsinrelationtothevalidityofcertainEUCommissionDecisionsconcerning“StandardContractualClauses”.IntheHighCourt,certainquestionswerereferredtotheCJEUunderArticle267TFEU.

TheFirst-namedDefendant,Facebook,soughtleavetoappealtotheSupremeCourt.Leavewasgrantedontwomatters; thequestionofwhether,asamatterof Irishconstitutional lawandthe lawoftheEU,anyappeallayinthecontextofadecisionoftheHighCourttomakeareferencetotheCJEU;andalsoinrelationtocertainfindingsoftheHighCourtinrespectofthelawoftheUnitedStatesregardingdataprotection.

TheSupremeCourtdismissedtheappeal.TheChiefJustice,Mr.JusticeClarke,deliveringthejudgmentofthe Court (to whichMr. Justice O'Donnell,Ms. Justice Dunne,Mr. Justice Charleton,Ms. Justice FinlayGeogheganagreed)heldthatwhile,asamatterofUnionlaw,anappellatecourtcannotinterferewiththesole competenceof the referring court todecidewhether tomaintain,withdrawor amenda referencealreadymade,anappellatecourtmay,inaccordancewiththeordinaryprinciplesofIrishlaw,reviewandoverturnfindingsoffactmadebythetrialjudgeaspartoftheprocessleadingtoareference.Itwouldthenbeforthereferringcourttodecidewhatactiontotakeinrespectofthereference,ifanysuchfindingswereoverturnedonappeal.

TheChiefJusticefoundthatitwouldgenerallybeinappropriateforanappellatecourttoentertainsuchanappealwhileareferenceispending,asin“normal”proceedings,thepreliminaryrulingoftheCJEUprovidesthenationalcourtwithguidanceastotheproperinterpretationofUnionlawandthematterthenreturnstothenationalcourt,wheretheappropriateorderismade.Theappellantwouldthenhavetheopportunityto appeal against the overall decision of the referring court and to have any erroneous findings of factoverturned. However, in this case exceptional factors were at play, as the sole relief claimed by theCommissionerwasareferencetotheCJEU.TheCJEUwasrequiredtodeterminethevalidityoftherelevantmeasures, and the Irish courtswere to play no further role,meaning the appellant had no subsequentopportunity to invoke any appellate regimewhich the Constitutionwould otherwise permit. Thus, theSupremeCourtwasentitledtoconsidertheappealofFacebookagainstthefindingsoffactmadebytheHighCourt.

Turningtothosefindings,theChiefJusticeheldthat itwasnotentitledtoconsiderthosematterswhichwenttothetermsofthereferenceortothequestionofwhethertheHighCourtconsidereditappropriatetomakeareference.Dismissingtheremainingheadsofappeal,whichconcernedfindingsoffactinrelationtoUSlaw,theCourtheldthatitwasmoreappropriatetocharacterisethecriticismswhichFacebooksoughtto make of the judgment of the High Court as being directed towards the proper characterisation ofunderlyingfacts,ratherthantowardsthosefactsthemselves.

Inexceptionalcircumstances,anappellatecourtmayreviewandoverturnfindingsof fact which were made by a trial judge as part of the process leading to areferencetotheCJEUunderArticle267TFEU.Thisdoesnotinterferewiththesolecompetenceof the referring court todecidewhether tomaintain,withdraw oramendthereference.


Tobin v. Minister for Defence [2019] IESC 57

Judgment of Mr. Justice Clarke, Chief Justice, delivered on 15th July 2019

TheAppellant,Mr.Tobin,wasemployedbytheRespondent,theMinisterforDefence,intheAirCorpsfrom1989to1999.TheRespondentallegedthat,inthecourseofhisemployment,hewasexposedtodangerouschemicalsand, in2014,he issuedpersonal injuriesproceedingsagainst theState. In thedefence delivered, every allegation made by the Respondent in his personal injury summons wasdenied.

TheAppellantthensoughtdiscoveryfromtheStateofdocumentsrelatingtothechemicalsinuseatthepremisesandthesafetydataandproceduresrelatingtotheworkplace.TheStateconsentedtomakingdiscovery inpart,but somecategoriesofdocumentationweredisputedon thebasisof thelogisticalandfinancialburdenwhichfulldiscoverywouldimpose.

IntheHighCourt,theAppellantwasgrantedasignificantportionofthediscoverysought.TheCourtofAppealallowedtheappealinrespectofanumberofcategoriesofdocumentationonthebasisthatthattheinformationshouldbefirstsoughtbymeansofinterrogatories,asanorderforfulldiscoverywouldbeonerousanddisproportionate.

TheChiefJustice(withwhomMr.JusticeMcKechnie,Ms.JusticeDunne,Mr.JusticeCharletonandMs.JusticeO'Malleyagreed)allowedtheappealandrestoredtheorderoftheHighCourt.Settingoutthegeneralprinciplestobeappliedbyacourtconsideringadiscoveryapplication,theChiefJusticeoutlinedtheconcernthataccessto justicemaybe impeded if itbecomesdisproportionatelyburdensome.Acourtwillorderdiscoveryifitissatisfiedthatthedocumentssoughtarebothrelevantandnecessary.Whiletheestablishmentofrelevanceshouldbydefaultalsoestablishnecessity,itwasheldthatsuchanassumptioncanbedisplacediftheorderisfoundtobedisproportionate.

TheChiefJusticeheldthatit isfortherequestingpartytoestablishtherelevanceofthedocumentswhosediscoveryissoughtbutitisfortherequestedparty,initsresponse,toindicateanyreasonswhyfulldiscoveryshouldnotbeordered. Wheretherelevanceofdocumentshasbeenestablished,theburdenwilllieontherequestedpartytoputforwardreasonsastowhythetestofnecessityhasnotbeenmet.Itwasheldthatarequestingpartydoesnotneedtoestablishthattheyhaveexhaustedallotherproceduresavailable,suchasinterrogatories,toestablishrelevantfactsbeforediscoverycanbesought.Itisfortherequestedpartytosuggestanyalternative,effectiveandlessburdensomemeansofobtainingtherelevantinformation.Finally,theChiefJusticehighlightedthatrelevanceisdeterminedbyreferencetothepleadings,andthatitisappropriateforacourttotakeintoaccountthemannerinwhichthecaseispleadedbyboththerequestingandrequestedparties.

AssessingtheproportionalityoftheRespondent’sdiscoveryapplication,theChiefJusticeemphasisedthefactthattheStateeffectivelyputMr.Tobinonfullproofofhisclaim,therebyextendingthescopeofthepotentiallyrelevantdocumentationinthecase.Inlightofthenatureoftheproceedings,theChiefJusticenotedtheimportanceofanyevidenceconcerningchemicalswhichmayhavebeenusedandthetrainingwhichhemayhavereceivedinrespectofthesame.ItconcludedthattheStatehadnotdischargedtheburdenofdemonstratingthatalternativemeasureswouldbecapableofprovidingthenecessaryinformationbutwithmuchlessuseofresources.Finally,theChiefJusticenotedthatinthe contextof civil actionproceedings, theState shouldnotbe considereddifferently toanyotherrequestedpartybyvirtueoftheresourcesatitsdisposal.

TheCourtsetoutthepropergeneralapproachtodiscoveryincaseswherethereisasuggestionthatthedisclosuresoughtisexcessivelyburdensome.


X.X. Minister for Justice and Equality [2019] IESC 59

Judgment of Mr. Justice Charleton delivered on 23rd July 2019

Mr.XXwasdeportedfromIrelandin2016onthebasisofsecuritygroundsandhisallegedactivityonbehalfofDaesh,ortheIslamicStateofIraqandtheLevant,ISIL,orISIS.Mr.JusticeCharleton,deliveringthe judgmentoftheCourt(withwhomMr.JusticeO'Donnell,Mr.JusticeMacMenamin,Ms.JusticeDunne,Mr.JusticeCharletonandMs.JusticeO'Malleyagreed),consideredacomplextimelineofeventswhich, in essence, caused them to consider the positionwhere an application ismade for refugeestatus,theapplicationiswithdrawnandthenasubsequentapplicationismadeagain.Thisraisedtheissueoftheproperinterpretationandapplicationofthelegislativeprovisionsrequiringchallengessuchasjudicialreviewproceedingstobetakenwithinaparticulartimeframe.Mr.JusticeCharletonhadtoconsiderwhether a challenge taken in such circumstances outside of the timeframe permitted forjudicialreviewamountedtoa“collateralattack”.

Oncollateralattacks,theCourtobservedthatthelegislationprovidesforpartiestomovewithdispatchanditisrightfromthepointofeffectivenessinoperatinginternationalprotectionthatpointsshouldbetakenasandwhentheyarise.Courtsshouldnotallowthesystemtobebypassedandforcollateralattackstobetakenatatimewhentheentitlementtochallengeadecisionbyjudicialreviewhaspassed.Mr. Justice Charleton further noted that instead of challenging the relevant decisions under theappropriatestatutoryprocedureMr.XXsoughtdeclaratoryrelieftheexclusiveeffectofwhichwastocollaterallyseektounderminealegalstatusthatrequiredtobethenjudiciallyreviewed.AffirmingtheHigh Court and the Court of Appeal’s findings that this was impermissible, Mr. Justice Charletonconfirmed that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from the generallyapplicablerule.

SinceMr.JusticeCharletondecidedthatwhatwasoccurringwasanimpermissiblecollateralattackonanearlierstepinproceedingswhichshouldthenhavebeenchallengeditwentontonotethatwhatisnotpossibleinthecodeoflegislationdealingwithinternationalprotectionisalaterchallengewhichhastheguiseofaseparateargument,butwhichinsubstanceisanattempttoundermineadecisionthatiswithinthelimitsoftheboundarieswherebyitmaybechallenged,butwasnotthenchallenged.

Mr.JusticeCharletonalsodeclinedtotreatthematterasmootduetoMr.XX’sdeportation.

In international protection cases, courts shouldnot allow the legislative systemwhich requires parties tomovewithdispatch to bebypassed and for collateralattacks to be taken at a timewhen the entitlement to challenge a decision byjudicialreviewhaspassed.


Nano Nagle School v. Daly [2019] IESC 63

Judgment of Mr. Justice MacMenamin delivered on 31st July 2019

Ms.Daly,theAppellant,workedasaspecialneedsassistant(“SNA”)fortheRespondent(“theSchool”)whichcatersforchildrenwithcertaindisabilities.Shesufferedanaccidentresultinginparalysisfromthe waist down and her having to use a wheelchair. The School Board (“the Board”) refused herpermissiontoreturntowork.OnitsunderstandingoftheEmploymentEqualityActs,1998-2011(“theAct”),theEqualityTribunaldeterminedthatshecouldnotperformthedutiesofanSNA.Onappeal,theLabourCourtreversedthatdecision,awardingher€40,000incompensation.TheHighCourtupheldthisdecision,butthiswasreversedbytheCourtofAppeal.TheAppellantappealedtotheSupremeCourt.

Section16(1)oftheActdoesnotrequiretheretentionofanemployeeifheorsheisnot,orisnolonger,fullycompetentandavailabletoundertakethedutiesofthepositioninquestion.Section16(3)statesthat a disabled person is fully competent to undertake any duties if he or she would be so fullycompetentandcapableonreasonableaccommodation(“appropriatemeasures”)beingprovidedbytheemployer,unlesstodosowoulddisproportionatelyburdentheemployer.Assuchs.16(1)setsouta premise with s.16(3) providing an exception. Mr. Justice MacMenamin (with whom Mr. JusticeO’Donnell,Ms.JusticeDunneandMs.JusticeO’Malleyagreed;Mr.JusticeCharletondissenting)heldthattheCourtofAppealhadincorrectlyinterpretedthelawonthispoint.Ifadisabledpersoncanbereasonablyaccommodated,theyaretotreatedasiftheyhadnodisabilityifaccommodationdoesnotdisproportionalityburdentheemployer.

TheevidenceintheLabourCourtwasthatanassessoradvisedthattheAppellantcouldactonlyasa“floating”SNA.TheBoardreceivedunclearinformationfromtheNationalCouncilforSpecialEducation(“NCSE”) in this regard,andwithoutconsultationwith theAppellant,prohibitedher fromresumingemployment.Mr.JusticeMacMenaminconsideredthattheNCSEadvicewouldhavebeenimportantinaconsiderationofwhethertherehadbeencompliancewiths.16(3).Additionally,themajorityheldthattheLabourCourthadfailedtoconsideralloftheevidenceoftheAppellant,somepartsofwhichwerepotentially significant. Whether taken alone, or in conjunction with the NCSE issue, Mr. JusticeMacMenaminheldthattheLabourCourthadfailedtomakeadeterminationbyreferencetoalloftherelevantevidence.

When determiningwhether a court should interfere with the decision of an expert administrativetribunal,theissuesoflawtobeconsideredinacasestatedcouldinclude(i)findingsofprimaryfactwhere there was no evidence to support them; (ii) findings of primary fact which no reasonabledecision-makingbody couldmake; (iii) inferencesor conclusionswhichwereunsustainable and (iv)whetheralegaldeterminationmadebythebodywaswrongorultravires.Mr.JusticeMacMenaminheldthattheHighCourthadbeenover-deferentialtotheLabourCourtwhichhadfailedtoconsiderlargepartsofMs.McGrath’sevidence,andthattheCourtofAppealhaderredinitsinterpretationoftheAct.TheCourtheldthemattershouldberemittedbacktotheLabourCourttoconsiderwhether,evenifprovidedwithreasonableaccommodation,theappellantcouldreturntothepositionofanSNA.

UndertherelevantprovisionsoftheEmploymentEqualityActs,ifadisabledpersoncanbereasonablyaccommodatedbyanemployer,theyaretotreatedasiftheyhad no disability if accommodation does not disproportionality burden theemployer.


Harlequin Property (SVG) Limited & ors. V. O’Halloran and anor [2019] IESC 76

Judgment of Mr. Justice MacMenamin delivered on 1 November 2019

ThiswasanappealunderArticle64oftheConstitutionagainstajudgmentoftheHighCourtthroughwhichbothRespondentsrecoveredjudgmentinthesumof€1,575,500.TheHighCourtheldthattheAppellant,Mr.O’Halloran, hadby fraudulentmisrepresentationpersonally inducedHarlequin topartwith sumsofmoneytothatvalueormore.

Harlequinbeganadevelopment intheBuccamentBayareaofSt.VincentandtheGrenadinesbywayofcontractwith adeveloper, Ridgeview.Harlequin laterdischargedRidgeviewand retained the ICEGroupunderMr.O’Halloran’scontrolandwhichpreviouslyhadbeenasubcontractor.TheHighCourtfoundthattheAppellantlaterhadmadeaseriesofmisrepresentationstoHarlequinuponwhichthecompanyreliedinsendingsubstantialsumsofmoneytoICE.TheHighCourtfoundthatMr.O’Hallorannotonlycontinuedtorequestpaymentswhenhewasawaretheprojectcouldnotbecompletedontime,buthaddivertedlargesumstohisownpurposes.

Onappeal,twoissuesarose:first,thelegalstatusoffindingsoffactand,second,thenatureofthetortofdeceit arising from fraudulentmisrepresentations. As to the first issue,Mr. JusticeMacMenamin (withwhomMr.JusticeO'DonnellandMr.JusticeCharletonagreed)heldthatgenerallysuchfindingsfallintotwocategories: first, thoseof fact and secondly, inferences from facts.Anappellate courtdoesnotobservewitnessesasdoesatrial judge,andwillonlysetasideafindingoffactwhentheversionoftheevidencereliedoncouldnotreasonablybecorrectorhadnoreasonableevidentialbasis.Thejudgementemphasisedthatafindingastothecredibilityofawitnessisafindingoffact.

Inanalysingthetortofdeceit,Mr.JusticeMacMenaminfoundthattheHighCourtcorrectlysummarisedtheprinciples:amisrepresentationismadefraudulentlyiftherepresentorknowsitisuntrueorisrecklessastoits truth; andwhere a representor fraudulently deceives another and causes loss, he or she is liable indamagesforthetortofdeceit.Mr.JusticeMacMenaminnotedthatthefundamentaltaskoftheCourtonappealwastoassesswhethertheevidencesupportedMcGovernJ.’sfindings,whethertheinferenceshedrewwerefairlyandproperlydrawn,andwhetherthejudgehaddirectedhimselfcorrectlyonthelaw.TheHighCourthadheldthat,duetotheMr.O’Halloran’smaterialinducements,HarlequincontinuedtoemploytheICEGroupandfunnelever-increasingsumsintotheprojectwhenMr.O’Halloranknewitcouldnotbedeliveredontime.TheHighCourtacceptedevidencethatwhentheICEGroupwasdismissedfromthesite,itwasfarfromtheconditiononecouldhaveexpectedhadtherebeenanyrealintentiontofinishitontime.Substantialworkremainedincomplete,theICEGroupwasfinanciallyinsolvent,anditlackedthecapitaltomeet its obligations to Harlequin. Moreover, its controller, Mr. O’Halloran, had consistently divertedsubstantial sums paid by Harlequin to his own purposes through “bogus” transactions. Mr. JusticeMacMenaminobservedthatinmanysensesthiswasa“factcase”wherethetrialjudgehadbeenentitledtoaccepttheevidenceandthathemadesustainablefindingsinthisregardandcorrectlydirectedhimselfonthelaw.Mr.JusticeMacMenamindismissedtheappeal.

Anappellatecourtdoesnotobservewitnessesasdoesatrialjudge,andwillonlyset aside a findingof factwhen the versionof the evidence reliedon couldnotreasonablybecorrectorhadnoreasonableevidentialbasis.Inrelationtothetortofdeceit,amisrepresentation ismadefraudulently if therepresentorknows it isuntrueorisrecklessastoitstruth;andwherearepresentorfraudulentlydeceivesanotherandcausesloss,heorsheisliableindamagesforthetortofdeceit.


McKelvey v. Iarnrod Éireann/Irish Rail [2019] IESC 79

Judgment of Mr. Justice Clarke, Chief Justice delivered on 11th November 2019

TheAppellant,Mr.McKelvey,wasanemployeeoftheRespondent,IarnródÉireann,andwassubjecttoaninvestigationconcerningtheallegedtheftoffuelbywayofthemisuseofacompanyfuelcard.Asaresult,hewassuspendedwithpayanddisciplinaryproceedingswerecommenced, in thecourseofwhichapersonalhearingwasrequestedbytheAppellant.

Onhisbehalf, theAppellant’s solicitorsassertedanentitlement to representhimathisdisciplinaryhearing.ThisrequestwasrefusedbytheRespondentonthebasisthattherewasnoprovisionforlegalrepresentation intheformalproceduresprescribedbythecompanydisciplinarycode. Instead, thiscode provided the employeewith the right to representation “by fellow employee or trade unionrepresentative”.

AninterlocutoryinjunctionwassoughtfromtheHighCourttopreventthedisciplinaryprocessgoingahead, on the basis that, amongst other things,Mr.McKelveywas entitled to legal representationduring thehearing. In theHighCourt, an injunctionwas granted. In theCourt ofAppeal, IarnródÉireann’sappealwasallowedandtheinjunctionwasdischarged.

Mr.JusticeClarke,ChiefJustice(withwhomMr.MacMenamin,Ms.JusticeDunne,Mr.JusticeCharletonandMs.JusticeO'Malleyagreed)dismissedtheappeal.TheChiefJustice,followingthedecisionoftheSupremeCourt inRowlandv.AnPost [2017] IESC20, [2017]1 I.R.355,heldthatacourtshouldbereluctanttointerveneinadisciplinaryprocesspriortoitsconclusionunlessitisclearatthestagewhenaninjunctionissoughtthatsomethinghasoccurredwhichissufficientlyseriousandincapableofbeingcuredsothattherewasnoreasonableprospectthatanyultimatedeterminationcouldbesustainableinlaw.Onthatbasis,itwasheldthattheoverallquestionfortheCourttoaddresswaswhetheritwasclearatthatstageinthedisciplinaryprocessthattheprocessconcernedcouldnotberegardedasfairunlessMr.McKelveyweretobeaffordedlegalrepresentation.

Inthatcontext,theChiefJusticeheldthattheproperapproachtothequestionofwhetheradisciplinaryprocesscanberegardedasunfairbecauseoftheabsenceofanentitlementtolegalrepresentationissetoutbyGeogheganJ.inBurnsv.GovernorofCastlereaPrison[2009]IESC33,[2009]3I.R.682.Thissetsouttheclearprinciplethatanentitlementtolegalrepresentationinadisciplinaryprocessexistsonlyinexceptionalcircumstanceswhereitisnecessarytoachieveafairprocess.

TheChief Justiceheldthat,onthefactsof thiscase, therewasnothing intheallegations, the likelyevidenceortheprocesslikelytobefollowedwhichwouldplacethesedisciplinaryproceedingsbeyondthecompetenceofanexperiencedtradeunionofficial,andhethereforeconcludedthatithadnotbeenestablishedthatlegalrepresentationwasrequiredinordertosecureafairprocessinthecircumstancesofthecase.Itwasstatedthatif,coupledwiththeseriousnessoftheallegationandofthepotentialconsequences, there are particularly difficult issues of law or extremely complex facts, then thecumulativeeffectofeachofthosemattersmightlead, inanexceptionalcase,totheviewthatlegalrepresentationwasrequired.

Inaseparatejudgment,Mr.JusticeCharleton,agreedwiththeconclusionofmajority,butonthebasisof theprinciplesof contract law.Under the termsofhis contractofemployment,heheld thatMr.McKelvey was entitled to have a fellow employee assist him at the disciplinary hearing, or to berepresentedbyatradeunionofficial,buthewasnotentitledtolegalrepresentation.

An entitlement to legal representation in a disciplinary process exists only inexceptionalcircumstanceswhereitisnecessarytoachieveafairprocess.


Minister for Justice and Equality v. Celmer [2019] IESC 80

Judgment of Mr. Justice O’Donnell delivered on 12th November 2019

The Appellant’s surrender was sought by three separate regional courts in Poland by way of theEuropean Arrest Warrant procedure. The offences for which the Appellant was sought related toalleged drug production and smuggling. TheAppellantwas subsequently arrested on foot of thesewarrantsin2017.TheAppellantobjected tohis surrenderon thebasis that systemic changeshadbeenmade to theorganisationof the Judiciary inPoland thathad theeffectofundermining the independenceof theJudiciary.TheAppellantsoughttorelyontheprovisionsoftheConstitutionofIreland,theEuropeanConventiononHumanRightsandtheCharterforFundamentalRightsoftheEuropeanUnion.ItwascontendedthattheAppellant’srighttoafairtrial,asenshrinedundertheserespectiveinstruments,wouldbedeprivedtosuchanextentthatitplacedonobligationontheexecutingauthority,inthiscasetheIrishCourts,torefusetosurrendertheAppellanttoPoland.TheobjectionoftheAppellanttohissurrender intheHighCourtgaverisetoaseriesof judgmentswhich culminated in the referral by the trial judge of two questions to the Court of Justice of theEuropeanUnionunderArticle267TFEUthatCourt.TheCourtofJusticeheldthat“theexistenceofareal risk that the person in respect of whom a European Arrest Warrant has been issued will, ifsurrenderedtotheissuingjudicialauthority,sufferabreachofhisfundamentalrighttoanindependenttribunaland,therefore,oftheessenceofhisfundamentalrighttoafairtrial”.Mr.JusticeO’Donnell(withwhomthePresidentoftheCourtofAppeal,Mr.JusticeBirmingham,Mr.JusticeMcKechnie,Ms.JusticeDunneandMr.JusticeCharletonagreed).Thisessence,Mr.JusticeO’Donnellheld,iscapableofpermittingtheexecutingjudicialauthoritytorefrain,bywayofexception,fromgivingeffecttothatwarrant,onthebasisofArticle1(3)oftheFrameworkDecision2002/584.Mr.JusticeO’DonnelldismissedtheappealandupheldthatthedecisionoftheHighCourttoendorsetheEuropeanArrestWarrantsurrenderingtheAppellanttothePolishauthorities.WhilstnotingthattherewasclearevidenceofthebreachofPoland’sobligationsundertheEuropeanTreaties,theCourtfoundthattheevidenceavailabledidnotsatisfythethresholdthathadbeensetbytheCourtofJusticefordeterminingwhether therewasa“real risk” that the impactof thechangesmade to thePolishjudicialsystemwould,ineffect,giverisetotheAppellantnotbeingaffordedafairtrial.Therewas,astheCourtnoted,abreachoftheessencetotheAppellant’srighttoafairtrial,asopposedtoabreachoftherightitself.Whilstnotingthatsystemdeficienciescouldpossiblyamounttoasufficientbreachoftheessenceoftherighttoafairtrialandthusrequiringanexecutingauthoritytorefusesurrender,Mr.JusticeO’DonnellwasoftheviewthatitwasclearfromthedecisionoftheCourtofJusticethatthesystemicchangesinPoland,whileseriousandgraveintheirownright,werenotofascaletomeetthethresholdset.

ThresholdforrefusingtosurrenderanindividualwhoisthesubjectofaEuropeanArrest Warrant is not met in circumstances where, notwithstanding systemicviolationstotheindependenceoftheJudiciaryofaMemberState.


Simpson v. Governor of Mountjoy Prison [2019] IESC 81

Judgment of Mr. Justice MacMenamin delivered on 14th November 2019

In2013,theAppellantservedacustodialsentenceinMountjoyPrison,theGovernorofwhichwasthefirst-namedRespondentintheseproceedings.TheAppellantappliedtotheRespondenttobetreatedasa“protectionprisoner”underRule63ofthePrisonRules,2007(S.I.252of2007)(the‘PrisonRules’)..TheAppellantwassubsequentlydetainedinspecialprotectionfrom13thFebruaryto30thSeptember2013.

TheAppellantinstitutedlegalproceedingsclaimingthattheconditionsunderwhichhewasdetainedinfringedhisconstitutionalrightsandhisrightsundertheEuropeanConventiononHumanRights(the‘Convention’).AtthecoreoftheAppellant’sclaimswasthepracticecolloquiallyreferredtoas‘slopingout’, apracticewhich involvesprisoners, in theabsenceof in-cell sanitation,being required tousechamberpotswhichwereemptieddaily.

TheHighCourtheld thatwhilst theevidence clearly showed therewere seriousdeficiencies in theAppellant’s conditionswhilston specialprotection towarrant thegrantingofadeclaration thathisconstitutionalrighttoprivacyhadbeeninfringed,thetrialjudgerefusedtoawardhimanydamagesorcostsonthebasisthathehadliedandexaggeratedinsignificantaspectsofhisclaim.

The Appellantwas granted leave to appeal directly from the High Court, an applicationwhich theRespondentsdidnotresist.Whilsttheappealproceededoncertainagreedfacts,theSupremeCourtnotedthat“prisoncondition”casesarehighlyfact-specific.TheCourtnotedthatthecasemadebytheAppellantontheappealraisedsignificantquestionsastotherelationshipbetweentheConstitution,theapplicationindomesticlawofprinciplesnowidentifiedinthejurisprudenceoftheEuropeanCourtofHumanRights,andtheappropriatenessofseekingtoapplysuchprinciplestotheAppellant’sclaimfordamagesforinfringementofconstitutionalrights.

Givingjudgment,Mr.JusticeMacMenamin(withwhomMr.JusticeO'Donnell,Mr.JusticeMcKechnieandMs.JusticeO’Malleyagreed)recognisedthattheConstitutionhasbeenheldtoprovideawide-rangeofprotectionsforthepersonalrightsofprisoners.Henotedthatadeprivationoflibertymustnotonlybeinaccordancewithlaw,butfurther,anyreductionofprisoners’fundamentalrightsmustbeproportionateandmustnotfallbelowthestandardsrequiredtoprotecthumandignity.Mr.JusticeMacMenamin then engaged in an analysis of the ECtHR jurisprudence which has enunciated thatpersonalspaceoflessthan3squaremetresperprisonerraisesa“strongpresumption”ofviolationofArticle3oftheConvention,prohibitingtorture,inhumanordegradingtreatment.Hefoundthattheconditionsofdetentionwerehumiliatingandinvasivebyanyreasonablestandardofpersonalprivacyand they fell substantially below the standards to be expected of an Irish prison in the year 2013.StressingthatevenasinglesubstandardconditionortrivialinfringementofthePrisonRulescouldnot,perse,renderaprisoner’sdetentionunlawful,Mr.JusticeMacMenaminstatedthatthedetentionoftheAppellantatalltimesremainedlawful.However,theAppellant’sentitlementsmustbemeasuredagainst the constitutional guarantees contained in Article 40.3 of the Constitution which are tovindicatetherightsoftheperson,insofarasis“practicable”.

Thepracticeof‘sloppingout’inasharedcellamountstoinhumananddegradingtreatmentand is inbreachtheunenumeratedconstitutionalrighttoprivacyandbodilyintegrity.


Referring to Article 40.3 of the Constitution, Mr. JusticeMacMenamin observed that by virtue ofpersonhood,eachindividualhasanintrinsicworthwhichistoberespectedandprotectedbyothersandbytheState.ConsiderationoftheconstitutionalrighttoprivacyanddignityofthepersonfollowedbyreferencetotheestablishedIrishjurisprudence.

Mr.JusticeMacMenaminstatedthattheconditionstowhichtheAppellantwasexposeddiminishedthe right to privacy and the value of dignity due to him as a person, even when seen within thelimitations which necessarily arose from the fact of his detention. Accordingly, Mr. JusticeMacMenaminheldthattheAppellantwasentitledtoadeclarationthattheconditionsofhisdetentioninfringedhisconstitutionalrightsunderArticle40.Heawardeddamagesinthesumof€7,500.Whilstnotingthatthedeclarationandtheawardofdamageswouldbe, inandofthemselves,sufficienttodispose of the appeal, it would not generally speaking be necessary for a court to consider theConvention.

TheeffectoftheMr.JusticeMacMenamin’sdecisionwastoframethedeclarationmadebytheHighCourtindifferenttermsandtoallowthemoderateawardofcompensatorydamagesinvindication.TheawardofdamageswasagainstthePrisonServiceonlyandnootherrespondent.TheorderoftheHighCourtwasaccordinglyvaried.Mr.JusticeDonalO’Donnell,inashortconcurringjudgment,agreedwiththemajorityjudgmentofMr.JusticeMacMenaminandconfinedhis judgment tomakinganumberofobservations in relation tocertain arguments that were made in the case on issues which may require further futureconsideration.


Michael (a minor) and ors v. Minister for Social Protection & ors [2019] IESC 82

Judgment of Ms. Justice Dunne delivered on 21st November 2019

Thiscaseconcernedanappeal fromadecisionoftheCourtofAppeal inrelationtothequestionofwhentheentitlementtothepaymentofchildbenefitarisestoparentswhoseimmigrationstatushasnotyetbeendeterminedfinallybytheStatebutachildoftherelevantfamilyhadeitherstatusasanIrishcitizenorasarefugee.

InMichael’scaseMr.andMs.XwereAfghancitizenswhocametoIrelandwiththeireldestchild,usingfalsePakistaniidentitydocumentsandUnitedKingdomvisasissuedonfootofthosedocuments.Therewerefourchildrenofthefamily,threeofwhomwereborninIreland.In2014,Michaelwasdeclaredtobearefugeeand,onfoottothis,theremainingmembersofthefamilyappliedforfamilyreunificationpursuanttos.18oftheRefugeeAct1996.PermissionwasgrantedtothefamilytoremainwithMichaelandMs.XmadeanapplicationforchildbenefitundertheSocialWelfareConsolidationAct2005,asamended(‘theActof2005)inrespectofthefourchildren.

TheapplicationwasrefusedonthebasisthatMs.XwasnothabituallyresidentintheState,sinceshewas, at that time, still awaiting the decision from the Department of Justice and Equality on herapplicationforresidency.Proceedingswereissuedseekingthejudicialreviewofthedecisionrefusingchildbenefit.Asecondapplicationwasmadeforchildbenefitinrespectofthefourchildren,whichwasgrantedandMs.XwaspermittedtoclaimthepaymentwitheffectfromthedateuponwhichshewasgrantedpermissiontoremainintheState.HercontentionwasthatshewasentitledtobackpayofthechildbenefittoapointintimepriortotheregularisationofherownstayinIreland.

Inthesecondcase,EmmawasanIrishcitizenchildwhoseIrishcitizenshipderivedfromherfather.HerparentswerenotmarriedandhermotherwasaNigeriannationalwhosestayinIrelandwasregularisedonthebasisofherparentageofEmma.MrsY.’scontentionwasthatchildbenefitshouldhavebeenpaidfromthedateofEmma’sbirthandnotonlyfromthedateonwhichMrs.Y’sstayinIrelandbecameregularised.

Giving judgment, Ms. Justice Dunne (with whom the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Clarke, Mr. JusticeO'Donnell,Mr.JusticeCharletonandMs.JusticeO'Malleyagreed)heldthatchildbenefitispayable,ashasbeenseen,toaqualifiedpersonandthatthequalifiedpersonmustbehabituallyresidentinthestate.Ms.Y,havingregardtothefactthatshedidnothaverefugeestatusorpermissiontoresideinthe State, did not have habitual residence.Ms. Justice Dunne found that, onceMs. Y’s statuswaschangedbyreasonofagrantofpermissiontoremainintheState,therewasnodifferenceintreatmentbetweenMs.Yandanyotherqualifiedpersonintermsoftherequirementofhabitualresidence.

Ms.JusticeDunneobservedthatitisimportanttobearinmindthatonehastolookatthestatusoftheclaimantforchildbenefitandnotthatofthechildinrespectofwhomchildbenefitmaybepayable.Bearingthatinmind,sheheldthattheActof2005didnotgiverisetoanyinequalityoftreatmentintermsofthoseentitledtoclaimchildbenefit.

Childbenefitispayabletoaqualifiedperson,whomustbehabituallyresidentinthestate. Incircumstanceswheretherewasnodifference intreatmentbetweentheapplicantsandanyotherqualifiedpersoninrespectoftherequirementofhabitualresidence,theSocialWelfareConsolidationsAct2005,asamended,didnotgiverisetoanyinequalityoftreatmentintermsofthoseentitledtoclaimchildbenefit.


InrespectofMichael,Ms.JusticeDunneconcludedthatchildbenefitshouldhavebeenpayabletoMs.XfromthedateuponwhichadeclarationofrefugeestatuswasgiventoMichael.Inotherwords,theCourtofAppealhasfocusedonthepositionofthechildratherthantheclaimantandthatthisapproachwasnotcorrect.ItheldthattheStatewasnotobligedtomakeapaymentofchildbenefittoMs.XinrespectofMichaeluntilsuchtimeasshewasgivenpermissiontoresideintheState.

In a judgment concurringwith themajority judgmentofMs. JusticeDunne.,Mr. JusticeO’Donnell.foundthatthedirectdiscriminationmadebytheimpactofthelegislationbetweenEmma’smother,andthemotherofthecomparatorcitizenchildwhoisaqualifiedpersonforthepurposesofthe2005Actwasapermissibledistinctionbaseduponrationalgrounds,anda legitimateStateobjectiveandthereforeisnotanimpermissiblediscriminationcontrarytoArticle40.1oftheConstitution.


Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank v. O’Malley [2019] IESC 84

Judgment of Mr. Justice Clarke, Chief Justice, delivered on 29th November 2019

Atissueinthiscasewasthelevelofdetailrequiredtobestatedonasummonsissuedpursuanttothesummaryjudgmentprocedure.Apartywishingtorecovera“liquidatedsum”(asumthatcanbeclearlyquantifiable)fromanotherpartymayapplytocourtforasummaryjudgment.

TheAppellantenteredintoamortgageloanfacilityagreementwiththeRespondent in2008forthesum of €225,000. In 2011, the Appellant ceased to make any monthly repayments. In 2014, theRespondentissuedasummarysummonsseekingajudgmentof€221,795.53,which,itstated,wastheremaining sum owing on the loan agreement.When thematter came before the High Court, theAppellantallegedthattheRespondent’spleadingsweredefectiveandclaimedthattherewasalackofdetailconcerninghowthefigureoutstandingwascalculatedandarrivedat.TheAppellantstatedthathehadsoughtfromtheRespondentadetailedbreakdownofhowthesumofmonieswerecalculated.Inresponse, theRespondent furnishedtheAppellantwithacopyof theStatementofAccount.TheAppellant argued that, in order for the Respondent to be entitled to judgment, there must be asufficientcalculationsetoutastohowtheamountclaimedissaidtobedue.

TheHighCourtrejectedtheargumentoftheAppellant,holdingthattherewassufficientevidencetosatisfythelegalrequirementsofwhatshouldorshouldnotbecontainedinamotionseekingjudgmentand relied on the Irish jurisprudence in this regard. Accordingly, judgment to the Respondentwasgrantedinthesumof€221,795.53.AsthiscasearosepriortotheestablishmentoftheCourtofAppeal,theAppellantappealedtotheSupremeCourt.

TheChiefJustice,havingregardtothewell-establishedprinciplesgoverningthetesttobeappliedbyacourtindecidingwhethertograntsummaryjudgment,identifiedthatthetwoseparatequestionsaroseinthiscase,namely(i)thelevelofdetailneedstobeincludedinorderforaspecial indorsementofclaimtobecompliantwithOrder4,rule4oftheRulesoftheSuperiorCourtsinacaseinvolvingaclaimfordebtarisingoutofwhatissaidtobealendingarrangement;and(ii)theevidencewhichneededtobeputforwardinordertojustifythegrantofjudgmentonasummarybasiswithintheconfinesofamotion for judgment. In addition, the Chief Justice noted that theremay be a question as to theconsequencesthatmay followweretheCourt todeterminethateither thespecialendorsementofclaimandtheevidenceputforwardwereinsufficientlyparticularised.

TheChiefJusticeconcludedthatthespecial indorsementofclaiminthiscasecontained insufficientdetailofhowthesumclaimedwascalculatedsoastomeettherequirementsofOrder4,rule4oftheRulesoftheSuperiorCourts.TherewasinsufficientdetailintheevidencesubmittedtotheHighCourttoassesswhetherthepreciseclaimtothedebtallegedhadbeenestablishedonaprimafaciebasis.TheChiefJusticefoundthataplaintiff, inordertoestablishaprimafacieclaimtotheprecisedebt,mustdomorethanmerelyassertandthat,inthiscase,therewereabsolutelynodetailsofhowthesumstatedonthespecialindorsementofclaimsaidtobeduewasarrivedat.Apersonreceivingsuchasummonscouldnothavethenecessarydetailstodecidewhethertheyshouldconcedeorresistthesummons.TheappealwasallowedandthematterwasremittedtotheHighCourt.

AspecialindorsementofclaimcontainedinsufficientdetailofhowthesumclaimedwascalculatedsoastomeettherequirementsofOrder4,rule4oftheRulesoftheSuperiorCourts.Inordertoestablishaprimafacieclaimtoaprecisedebt,aplaintiffmustdomorethanmerelyassert.


Director of Public Prosecutions v. F.E. [2019] IESC 85

Judgment of Mr. Justice Charleton delivered on 6th December 2019

ThiswasanappealbroughtbytheDirectorofPublicProsecutionsonundueleniencyofarapesentence.Thiscaseconcernedahusband,theaccused,andwife,thevictim.Therewereanumberofseparateeventsincludingthreattokillleadingtorape.Therewerefurtherthreatsoveraperiodofweeks,andacoupleofmonthslateraviolentattack.Theaccusedwasconvictedofanumberofoffencesincludingrape,threatstokill,andassaultcausingseriousharm.Hewassentencedtoaheadlinesentenceof14yearsreducedto10years.OnappealtotheCourtofAppealhisconvictionwasupheldandhissentencewasreducedto12-yearheadlinereducedto8years6months.TheDPPwasgrantedleavetoappealtotheSupremeCourtongroundsofundueleniencyinsentencing,andalsotoraisequestionsastothecircumstancesof a crime in situationswhere theoffence formspart of a series of offences. In theCentralCriminalCourttheaggravatingfactorsforsentencingtherapeoffenceweresaidtoinclude“thethreatofviolencewithaweapon,thebreachoftrust,theviolationoftheinjuredpartyinherownhomewhilehersonwasasleep,thefearthatheinstilledinherandthesevereeffectonhisvictim.”However,intheCourtofAppealsentencingfortherapeoffencewasviewedinisolationfromtheotheroffencesandassuchtheheadlinesentenceandtimetobeservedwerereduced.

Inrelationtowhatistobetakenintoaccountwhensentencing,Mr.JusticeCharletonsetoutthatthecircumstancesofthecrimecantakeplaceoveraperiodoftimeandthatoffencesshouldnotbeviewedin isolation when sentencing. In order to clarify the law in this area, a detailed analysis of rapesentencingwassetoutinthejudgment.Inparticular,guidancewasprovidedastosentencingbandsandmitigatingandaggravatingfactorstobeconsidered,including:belowthenorm;ordinaryheadlinesentence;moreseriouscases;andcasesrequiringuptolifeimprisonment

Sentencesgivenbelowthenormcarry4yearsimprisonmentorless,andthesecasestendtobethoseinwhichtheaccusedwasayoungteenager.Forexample,inthecaseofThePeople(DPP)vLukaszewicz[2019]IECA65,theaccusedwas16andthevictim15atthetimeoftheoffence.Aneffectivesentenceof 3 years imprisonment with 2 years suspended was given having taken the accused’s age intoconsiderationamongotherfactors.

The‘ordinary’headlinesentencecanbesaidtobeinandaround7years.InThePeople(DPP)vWD[2008]1IR30842theCentralCriminalCourtconsideredcases,withthemajorityofsentencesbetween5to7yearsimprisonment.However,therearemoreseriouscasesthatmeritaheadlinesentenceof10to15years.Thesecasestendtoinvolveviolenceorintimidationortheabuseoftrust.InThePeople(DPP) v Hearn [2019] IECA 137 the accused pleaded guilty to rape, false imprisonment and sexualassault.Theaccused lockedthevictim inahotel roomandtiedherhandsandthreatenedherwithhavingaknife inhisbag.Aheadlinesentencewassetat15yearsreducedby3yearsformitigatingcircumstances.Therearealsoanumberofrapecasesthatrequireuptolifeimprisonment.Thesetendtoinvolveaseriesofoffencesortheexploitationofchildrenovertime.

Applyingtheabovereasoningtothefactsofthiscase,Mr.JusticeCharletonallowedtheappealandthequashedthesentence imposedby theCourtofAppeal.He foundthat theCourtofAppealerred inconsideringtherapeandtheotheroffencesseparatelywhenitcametosentencing.Havingclarifiedthelawonsentencing,theCourthasagreedtohearsubmissionsandwillmakeadecisionastosentenceoftheaccusedoncethosesubmissionshavebeenheard.

TheSupremeCourtsetoutsentencingguidelinesforrapeoffences,aswellasthecircumstancesofacrimetobeconsideredwhensentencing.


E.R. v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2019] IESC 86

Judgment of Mr. Justice Charleton delivered on 14th November 2019

TheAppellant,alongwithherpartner,hadbeenchargedwithoffencescontrarytos3oftheNon-FatalOffencesAgainstthePersonAct1997,ands246oftheChildrenAct2001,arisingoutofinjuriessufferedbyherchild.Duringthetrial,thetrialjudgehadstatedintheabsenceofthejury,inopencourt,thatiftheaccusedwouldpleadguiltytooneoftheoffenceshe“couldprobablysee[his]waytodealwiththematterinanon-custodialway.”Counselfortheprosecutiontoldthecourtthatthisinterventionofthejudgedidnotmeanthatanappealonsentencewouldnotbeopentotheprosecution.Thenextdaytheaccusedpleadedguiltytothes3offence.PriortosentencingtheAppellantsoughttovacateherpleaofguilty,claimingthatshehadbeeninfluencedbythestatementofthetrialjudge.Herapplicationwasrefusedbythetrialjudge.

TheHighCourt, in judicial reviewproceedings, quashed thedecisionof the trial judge refusing theapplicationoftheAppellanttochangeherplea.TheHighCourtfoundthatthestatementsofthetrialjudgewereunderstoodbytheAppellantasgivingherthechoicebetweenanon-custodialsentenceifshepleadedguiltyandacustodialsentenceifshepleadednotguilty.Onappeal,theCourtofAppealheldthatjudicialreviewproceedingswereinappropriateforthequashingofarulingmadeduringthecurrencyofthetrial,astheseproceedingshadbeencommencedpriortotheconclusionofthetrial(i.e.beforesentencing).TheAppellantwasgrantedleavetoappealtotheSupremeCourtonthreeissuesofpublic importance, including:whetherthecasewasinappropriateforjudicialreviewproceedings;whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the case on that ground; and whether theinterventionofthetrialjudgewassuchthatthepleaofguiltyshouldbevacated.

Mr.JusticeCharleton(withwhomtheothermembersoftheCourtagreed)heldthatonlyinexceptionalcircumstanceswasjudicialreviewappropriateduringthecourseofacriminaltrial.Asatrialonlyendswhen the accused is either acquitted or sentenced after a finding of guilty, and no exceptionalcircumstancesaroseinthiscase,judicialreviewwasnotappropriate.

Inrelationtothestatementsmadebythetrialjudge,Mr.JusticeCharletonfoundthatinIrishlaw,therewasnoplacefordiscussionsincourtorinsecrecyofchambersastopotentialsentence,andassuchthe intervention by the Trial Judge was undesirable. However, given that the Director of PublicProsecutionshadstatedthatanappealonundueleniencyofanysentencewaspossible,theAppellantwouldhavebeenawarethatthetrialjudgewasnottheultimateauthorityonwhatthesentencewouldbe.Hestatedthattheissueofallowinganaccusedtowithdrawapleaofguiltyisatthediscretionofthe Trial Judge and should only be allowed in exceptional circumstances where the accused candemonstrateunduepressure.Inordertochangeaplea,thecourtwouldneedtohearevidence,andforthisreasonlawyersfortheaccusedshouldimmediatelywithdrawsothattheirevidenceisavailabletotheaccusedwhoisthereforenotobligedtowaivelegalprofessionalprivilege.

It is only in exceptional circumstances that the bringing of judicial reviewproceedingsisappropriateduringthecourseofacriminaltrialasatrialonlyendswhentheaccusediseitheracquittedorsentencedafterafindingofguilty,andnoexceptionalcircumstancesaroseinthiscase.Theissueofallowinganaccusedtowithdrawapleaofguiltyisatthediscretionofthetrialjudgeandshouldonlybeallowedinexceptionalcircumstanceswheretheaccusedcandemonstrateunduepressure.


Ms.JusticeO’Malleydeliveredashortconcurringjudgment,agreeingwiththeconclusionofMr.JusticeCharletonbutprovidingsomeadditionalobservationsinrelationtotheroleofCounselinadvisingastochangeofplea.

Consequently,theappealwasdismissed.


Fagan & ors. Dublin City Council [2019] IESC 96

Judgment of Ms. Justice Irvine delivered on 19th December 2019

Thisappealwasconcernedwithhowahousingauthoritycan lawfullyexercise itsdiscretionwhenitdetermineswhetheragroupofapplicantsforhousingsupportconstituteahouseholdforthepurposesofs.20(1)oftheHousing(MiscellaneousProvisions)Act2009(“the2009Act”).TheAppellantswereafather and his three children aged eleven, five and fourwho hewas co-parentingwith his formerpartner.ThefatherappliedtotheRespondent(“theCouncil”)forhousingsupport.Inhisapplication,he sought to includehis childrenasmembersofhishousehold in thehope that theCouncilwouldprovide him with housing support which would allow them to live together. However, his formerpartnerhadalreadybeenallocatedhousingsupportonthebasisthatthechildrenlivedwithher.

Whenreviewinganapplication,theCouncilfirstdeterminesthesizeofthehouseholdpursuanttos.20(1)ofthe2009Act.TheActsetsoutinsubs.(1)(c)thathouseholdmeans“twoormorepersonswhodonot livetogetherbutwho, intheopinionofthehousingauthorityconcerned,haveareasonablerequirement to live together”. The Council indicated that, amongst other things, the children hadalreadybeenprovidedwithaccommodationand,withtheCouncil’sresourcesbeinglimited,itwasnotin a position to offer duplicate support to them. Consequently, the Council determined that theAppellantsdidnothaveareasonablerequirementtolivetogetherandthattheirapplicationwastobeprogressedonthebasisthatthefatherwastheonlymemberofthehousehold.TheAppellantsbroughtjudicialreviewproceedings.

In theHighCourt, thedisputebetweenthepartiescentredaroundwhatkindofconsiderations theCouncilmayormaynot take intoaccountwhen itdetermineswhetheragroupofapplicantshasa“reasonable requirement to live together”.TheCouncilmaintained that itwasentitled to take intoaccountconsiderations relating to the resources ithasavailablewhenanswering thisquestion.TheAppellantscontendedthatahousingauthoritymustformtheiropinionsolelyonthebasisofwhethertheapplicants,asagroup,haveareasonablerequirementtolivetogetherasahousehold.TheHighCourtheldinfavourortheCouncil.

Ms.JusticeIrvine(withwhomtheChiefJustice,Mr.JusticeClarke,Mr.JusticeMacMenamin,Mr.JusticeCharletonandMs.JusticeO'Malleyagreed)reversedthedecisionoftheHighCourt.Sheheldthatinconsidering resources, the Council acted outside the four corners of s. 20(1) of the 2009 Act. Sheobservedthat,althoughitistheopinionofthehousingauthoritywhichisdeterminativeoftheissueofwhethermultiple applicants have a reasonable requirement to live together, thehousing authoritymustformtheiropinionbasedupontheapplicants’requirements.Considerationsastoresourcesdonotassist theCouncil insuchdeliberationsandarethereforeoutsidethediscretionaffordedtotheCouncil.

However,Ms.JusticeIrvineheldthattheCouncilispermittedtogatherevidencetosatisfyitselfofthefactthatsuchrequirementexists.ShefurtherobservedthatthedecisionoftheCounciltopermitonlyoneparenttoincludethechildrenontheirapplicationforhousingsupportmeansthatitoperatesadefacto policywhich inevitablyprevents it from forminganopinionona case-by-casebasis as to the

In exercising its discretionwhendeterminingwhether a groupof applicants forhousing support constitute a ‘household’,while it is theopinionof thehousingauthoritywhichisdeterminativeoftheissueofwhethermultipleapplicantshaveareasonable requirement to live together, thehousing authoritymust form theiropinionbasedupontherequirementsoftheapplicants.


reasonablerequirementoftheapplicanttolivetogetherandthatthisisnotwhatisenvisagedbythelegislation.

Ms. Justice Irvine criticised the Council for classifying parents in this position as “access parents”,observingthatinmanyinstancesbothparentswanttoplayasignificantroleintheupbringingoftheirchildrenandthatsuchclassificationandensuingpolicydoesnotallowthemtodoso.Thejudgedidhoweveracceptthathousingstockislimitedandthat,whenprioritisingdifferentapplications,thefactthatthechildrenarealreadyprovidedformaybetakenintoaccountatthatstage.


Director of Public Prosecutions v. C.Ce [2019] IESC 96

Judgment of Mr. Justice O’Donnell delivered on 19th December 2019

Thisappealconcernedtheproperapproachtobetakenbyatrialjudgewhereanaccusedappliestohaveatrialhaltedonthegroundsofallegedunfairnessarisingoutofasignificantlapseoftimebetweentheallegedoffenceandthetrial.TheappellantwasfoundguiltybyajuryoncountsofrapeandindecentassaultinMay2016,andsoughttoappealhisconviction.Theoffenceswereallegedtohavetakenplaceinhishomein1971/72,andtheappellantatalltimesdeniedhisguilt.Significantevidencewastenderedagainsthim.

DuringthecourseofhistrialintheCentralCriminalCourt,anapplicationwasmadeonbehalfoftheaccusedtohaltthetrialasaresultoftheprejudicearisingfromthedelayinbringingproceedings.Itwassubmittedthatthisdelayhadledtotherealriskofanunfairtrialduetotheabsenceofevidencefromhis formerpartner,nowdeceased,which,healleged,wouldhavebeenaweightyfactor inhisdefence.ThetrialjudgedismissedtheapplicationandthedecisionwasaffirmedbytheCourtofAppeal.TheappellantwasgrantedleavetoappealtotheSupremeCourtontheissueofextentoftheburdenonanaccused,triedonhistoricallegations,whoarguesthathistrialisunfairbyreasonofdelay.

Theappealwasdismissed.TherewasagreementbetweenallmembersoftheCourtthattheproperapproachatthelevelofprinciplerequiresanassessmentbythetrialjudgeastowhetheratrialisfairandjustinlightofthelapseoftimecomplainedofandwhethertheaccusedhadtherebybeendeprivedofarealisticopportunityofanobviouslyusefullineofdefence.Inhisjudgment,Mr.JusticeO’Donnellruledthatthelowercourtshadcorrectlyappliedthistest,andthattheevidencewhichtheappellant’sformerpartnerwouldsupposedlyhavegivenwasnotsogreatastoundermineafairtrialbyitsabsence.Hefurtherfoundthattherewasnofailuretoapplythelawbythetrialjudgenotstatingexplicitlythatshewasapplyingthetest.Mr.JusticeO’Donnellthenenunciatedanumberofprinciplestobeappliedin cases of this nature: the jurisdiction to determinewhether it is just to permit a trial on historicallegationsisbestconductedbythetrialjudge;thetrialjudge’sdecisioniswhetheritwouldbejusttopermitthetrialtoproceed;theymustmakeaseparateanddistinctdeterminationinthisregard;thetesttobeappliedisthefairnessandjusticeoftheprocesstodeterminethematter;and,finally,thatthetrialjudgeshouldclearlylayouttheconsiderationsleadingtotheconclusiononthisissue.

Inaconcurringjudgment,Mr.JusticeCharletonemphasisedtheaboveprinciplesbyrestatingtheninefactorssetoutinKv.HisHonourJudgeCarrollMoranandDPP[2010]IEHC23,whichsummarisetheissuesarisinginadelay,andwhenanorderofprohibitionshouldbegranted.Healsoconsideredtherelevance of the accused’s confession, which was a reliable and admissible admission of guilt.Separately, in her concurring judgment, Ms. Justice O’Malley considered that there must be a“reasonablepossibility”thattheabsenceofawitnessmightbeofmaterialassistancetothedefence.However,shewassatisfiedintheinstantcasethattherewassupportiveevidenceonseveralissues,inadditiontotheunchallengedadmissionofcriminalbehaviourbytheappellant.This,inheropinion,wasevidencesufficienttodisposeofanyclaimthattheaccusedwasunabletodefendhimselfagainstthecharge.

Theproperapproachtobetakenbyatrialjudgewhereanaccusedappliestohaveatrialhaltedasaresultofasignificantlapseoftimebetweentheallegedoffenceandthetrialrequiresanassessmentbythetrialjudgeastowhetheratrialisfairandjustinlightofthelapseoftimecomplainedofandwhethertheaccusedhadthereby been deprived of a realistic opportunity of an obviously useful line ofdefence.


Aminorityof theCourt (theChief Justice and JudgeMacMenamin concurring) considered that theabsenceofthewitnessconcernedwhohaddiedbeforethetrialcameon,incircumstanceswhereshewouldhavebeenpotentiallyavailableforapproximately36yearsafterthedateoftheallegedoffence,coupledwiththelengthyperiodoftimewhichhadelapsed,renderedthetrialunfair.


3

Part 3Education and Outreach


Education and Outreach

TheSupremeCourtviewsexternalengagementwithbodies,suchaswitheducationalestablishmentsandotherinstitutions,asanimportantwayofcreatinganawarenessoftheroleandworkoftheCourt.It is considered that building relationships through such engagement improves the accessibility ofSupremeCourtproceedingsandprovidesopportunitiesformembersoftheCourttodiscussthelawandvariousaspectsofthelegalsystem.EventsinvolvingengagementbymembersoftheCourtwitheducationalinstitutionsalsoprovidesstudentswithaninsightintopossiblecareerpathsinthelaw.

Supreme Court Sitting in Galway

In March 2019,the SupremeCourt travelled toGalway, where itsatintheNationalUniversity ofIreland Galway. Itwas the firstoccasiononwhichthe SupremeCourt sat in auniversityandtheCourt’s third timein its historysitting outsideDublin.TheCourtheardtwoappealsand deliveredjudgment in thecase ofO’Brien v.

ClerkofDáilÉireann&ors[2019]IESC12.ThedeliverybytheCourtofitsjudgmentwasbroadcastedbynationalbroadcaster,RaidióTeilifísÉireann(RTÉ)inlinewiththepracticeoftheSupremeCourtsince2017 to permit the broadcasting of its judgments. The SupremeCourt also launched its inauguralAnnualReport.

WhileinGalway,membersoftheCourtdeliveredaseriesofseminarsorganisedbytheSchoolofLawatNUIGalway.Theseincludedsessionson:

• ‘Tribunals of Inquiry’ delivered by Mr. Justice Peter Charleton and chaired by ProfessorDonnchaO’Connell;

• ‘Workplace Bullying’ byMr. Justice Donal O’Donnell, Mr. Justice JohnMacMenamin, Ms.JusticeIseultO’MalleyandMs.JusticeMaryFinlayGeoghegan,chairedbyMs.UrsulaConnolly;

• ‘Consentinrelationtosexualoffencesandotheroffencesagainsttheperson’byMr.JusticeGeorgeBirmingham,PresidentoftheCourtofAppeal,Ms.JusticeElizabethDunne,Mr.JusticePeterCharletonandMs.JusticeIseultO’Malley,chairedbyMr.TomO’Malley;

Members of the Supreme Court with Professor Pól Ó Dochartaigh, Registrar and Deputy President of NUI Galway on the occasion of the Court’s historic sitting at the University in March 2019.


The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Frank Clarke, delivering a statement on the occasion of the historic sitting of the Supreme Court at NUI Galway in March 2019.

• ‘Restrictionanddisqualificationofcompanydirectors’bytheChiefJustice,Mr.JusticePeterKelly,PresidentoftheHighCourt’andMs.JusticeMaryFinlayGeoghegan;

• ‘TheRoleoftheJudge’byPresidentBirmingham,Ms.JusticeDunneandMs.JusticeO’Malley,chairedbyDr.ConorHanly;

• ‘Separation of Powers’ by the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice O’Donnell and Ms. Justice FinlayGeoghegan,chairedbyDr.ShivaunQuinlivan;

• ‘DisabilityintheCourts’byPresidentKellyandMr.JusticeMacMenamin;• ‘WomenonSupremeCourts’byMr.JusticeMacMenaminandMs.JusticeDunne,chairedwith

theparticipationofMs.JusticeCatherineMcGuinness,formerjudgeoftheSupremeCourt,Ms. Justice Matilda Twomey, Chief Justice of Seychelles, Dr. Charles O’Mahony, Dr. CiaraSmythandProfessorSiobhánMullalyalsoparticipated(picturedbelow).

Othersessionsincludedaninformation session forsecondary school studentCAO applicants by Mr.Justice MacMenamin andaseminaron‘WorkingasaJudicialAssistant’givenbythe Chief Justice andJudicial Assistants of theSupremeCourtchairedbyDr.RónánKennedy.

WhileinGalway,theCourtcollaborated withmembers of the solicitorprofession under theauspices of the Galway

SolicitorsBarAssociationandmembersof theBarof Ireland. Ata receptionhostedby theGalwaySolicitorsBarAssociationandNUIGalway,theChiefJusticegaveanaddresson‘TheCommonLawPost-Brexit’.


AtthecommencementofthesittingoftheCourtatNUIGalway,theChiefJusticeremarked:

“SincetheestablishmentoftheCourtofAppeal…allofthecaseswhichtheCourthearswillhavebeendecidedtobeofgeneralpublicimportanceandtheCourtmarksthisfactbysittingasoftenasitcanoutsideofDublintoshowthatthisisnotjustaCourtforDublinbutaCourtforallofIreland.”

ThesittingoftheSupremeCourtinGalwayfollowedthesuccessofitsvisittoLimerickin2018andCorkin 2015, where it sat for the first time outside of Dublin and outside of the Four Courts since itsrefurbishmentin1931.

Preparations are underway for the first sitting of the Supreme Court inWaterford and Kilkenny inFebruary2020.

Comhrá – a video call initiative with secondary schools

The18thofOctober2019sawthelaunch‘Comhrá’(or‘conversation’inEnglish),anewpilotprogrammeof the Supreme Court. The initiative involves a collaboration between the Supreme Court and theCourts Servicewith theNationalAssociationof Principals andDeputyPrincipals to allow secondaryschoolstudentsinschoolsaroundthecountrytoparticipateinliveQ&AvideocallswithjudgesoftheSupremeCourt.

Inthefirstcall,studentsofCarndonaghCommunitySchoolinCo.DonegalaskedtheChiefJusticeandMs. Justice Irvine, whowere situated in the Four Courts, questions in relation to the work of theSupremeCourtandtheroleofaJudge.

Mr.JusticeO’DonnellandMs.JusticeO’MalleylaterinteractedwithstudentsofSt.Gerald'sCollegeinCo.Mayo.

Members of the Supreme Court with academic and administrative staff of the School of Law at NUI Galway on the occasion of the Court’s historic sitting at the University in March 2019.


The Chief Justice and Ms. Justice Irvine participating in a video call with students of Carndonagh Community School in the Supreme Court conference room.

Speakinginadvanceofthefirstcall,theChiefJusticecommented:

“This interactiveengagementwithsecond-level studentswill, it ishoped,demonstratehowtechnology can be used to encourage young people to better understand thework of theSupremeCourt.AsaSupremeCourtforallofIrelanditisimportantthatallcitizens–youngandold–areabletovisittheSupremeCourt,evenifremotely,andlearnmoreabouttheworkof the Court to gain a greater understanding of how the Courts of Ireland uphold theConstitution.”

AccordingtoCliveByrne,DirectoroftheNationalAssociationofPrincipalsandDeputyPrincipals,theNAPD is delighted to collaborate with the Courts Service in the development of the Comhrá PilotProgramme.

“Educationisalsoaboutlearningoutsidetheclassroom.Thisprogrammeisaperfectexampleofoureffortstobroadenourstudents’horizonsandexposethemtolearningexperiencestheywouldnottypicallyhaveduringtheirnormalschoolday.Itrepresentsafascinatingopportunityforsecond-levelstudentswhoareconsideringpursuingacareerinlaw.Forothers,itoffersawindowintoourlegalandjusticesystems.”


The programme involves theutilisation of existing video-conferencing technology that isused for video-linking courtroomswith vulnerable and remotewitnesses. In the comingmonthsthe pilot programmewill continuewith calls between the judges andstudentsfromKildareandDublin.Itishopedthatanapplicationprocesswill then open through which allsecond level schools can apply toparticipate.

Third Level Institutions

OutsideoftheirworkintheSupremeCourt,membersoftheCourtengageregularlywithlawschoolsthroughoutthecountryandabroad,inrolessuchasAdjunctProfessorsofLaw.

TheChiefJusticeisanAdjunctProfessoroftheLawSchoolofTrinityCollegeDublinandofUniversityCollege Cork, a Judge in Residence at Griffith College Dublin and recipient of the Griffith CollegeDistinguishedFellowshipAward.Mr.JusticeJohnMacMenaminisanAdjunctProfessoroftheNationalUniversityofIrelandMaynoothandJudgeinResidenceatDublinCityUniversity.

Mr. Justice PeterCharleton is anAdjunctProfessorofCriminal Law at theNational Universityof Ireland GalwayandJudgeO’Malleyserved as Judge inResidence at DublinCityUniversity.

Ms. Justice Iseult O’Malley and Mr. Justice Donal O’Donnell engaging with students from St. Gerald’s College, Castlebar, Co. Mayo as part of the Comhrá initiative launched by the Supreme Court.

The Hon Mr Justice George Birmingham, President of the Court of Appeal: the Hon Ms Justice Marie Baker; the Hon Mr Justice Frank Clarke, Chief Justice; Prof Mark Poustie, Dean of Law UCC at the Feeney lecture in honour of the late Mr Justice Kevin Feeney, hosted by UCC in collaboration with the Bar of Ireland, the Cork Bar and the Southern Law Association. Photo credit: Rob Lamb photography


JudgesoftheSupremeCourtregularlydeliverlecturesandpapersandparticipateininitiativesofthirdlevel educational institutions around the country and abroad. The Chief Justice delivered the BrianWalshLectureatUniversityCollegeDublinonthetopicof‘Wordswordswords-TextintheLaw’andguest lectures in Constitutional Law at Trinity College Dublin. He also chaired the Feeney lecturedelivered by George Birmingham, President of the Court of Appeal at University College Cork.Mr.JusticeO’DonnellischairmanoftheUCDSutherlandSchoolofLawJohnM.KellyLectureCommitteeandamemberoftheUCDConstitutionalStudiesGroup.Hedeliveredamasterclasson‘Litigation&Arbitration’attheAssociationofTransnationalLawSchools(ATLAS)AgorahostedbyUCDinJune,whichbringstogetherdoctoralstudentsinthefieldoftransnationallawfromaroundtheworld.

Mr. Justice O’Donnell pictured with Dr. Richard Collins and ATLAS students.

Mr.JusticeWilliamMcKechniechairedaneventjointlyorganisedbytheInstituteofInternationalandEuropeanAffairsandMaynoothUniversitytomarktheuniversity’s10thanniversaryatwhichEleanorSharpstonQC,AdvocateGeneraloftheCourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanUniongavealectureon“TheEuropean Project – Past Present and Future.’ He also chaired a seminar atUniversity College CorkexploringthefutureofjudicialcooperationbetweenBritainandIrelandpost-Brexitandaconferenceon ‘Developments in Tort Litigation at Trinity College Dublin. Mr. Justice MacMenamin deliveredlecturesatSt.LouisUniversityLawSchoolonchallengestotheruleoflaw.Mr.JusticeCharletongavea lecture to students of the University ofMissouri in Dublin on ‘Issues of Proof inMetadata fromTelecommunicationsinCriminalProsecutionsandtostudentsoftheUniversityofWashingtoninRomeon‘IrelandandEuropeanIntegration’.Ms.JusticeO’MalleyandMs.JusticeFinlayGeogheganchairedsessionsatthe IrishSupremeCourtReviewconferencehostedbytheSchoolofLaw,TrinityCollegeDublin.


Mooting Competitions

Mootcompetitionsprovidestudentswithanopportunitytoactaslegalrepresentativesinsimulatedcourt hearings. Throughout 2019, members of the Supreme Court judged a number of mootcompetitions.Mr.JusticeMacMenaminjudgedtheNationalMootCourtCompetitionhostedbyDublinCityUniversityandDCU’sGrandMootCourtFinal.TheTrinityCollegeFreeLegalAdviceCentre(FLAC)Karen KennyMemorialMoot Court Competitionwas adjudicatedbyMr. Justice Charleton andMs.JusticeDunnejudgedtheKing’sInnsBrianWalshMemorialMoot.

Mr. Justice John MacMenamin and Ms. Justice Carmel Stewart with the winning team from University College Dublin at the National Moot Court Competition hosted by DCU.

TheChiefJustice,Mr.JusticeMacMenaminandMs.JusticeO’MalleyjudgedTheBarofIrelandAdrianHardimanMemorialMootCompetitionintheSupremeCourtforpractisingbarristers.

L-R: Joe Holt BL (winner), April Duff BL (winner), Mr. Justice John MacMenamin, Chief Justice Frank Clarke, Ms. Justice Iseult O’Malley, Matthew Judge BL (finalist) and Patrick Fitzgerald BL (finalist) pictured in the

Supreme Court at the Adrian Hardiman Memorial Moot Competition.


Student Law Reviews

TheSupremeCourtgreatlysupportsstudent lawreviews,whichallow lawstudents toproduceandcontributetoacademicpublicationsonavarietyoflegaltopics.In2019,theEighthVolumeoftheKing’sInnsLawReviewwaslaunchedbytheChiefJustice.Ms.JusticeMarieBakerlaunchedtheEighteentheditionoftheCorkOnlineLawReview.

Supreme Court Review

TheIrishSupremeCourtReview(ISCR),hostedbyTrinityCollegeDublin,waslaunchedbyMr.JusticeDonalO’Donnellin2019.TheISCRisaforumforin-depthanalysisofthefunctionsandjurisprudenceoftheSupremeCourtofIreland.Itssecondconference,whichtookplaceinOctober2019,includedalectureon‘TheSupremeCourt’sTreatmentofEULawandpanelschairedbyMs.JusticeIseultO’MalleyandMs..JusticeFinlayGeogheganwhichdiscussedsomeoftheleadingcasesoftheCourt’s2018to2019legalyear.

Publications and extra-judicial speeches

JudgesoftheCourtoftenspeakateventsandpublishmaterialsinlegalpublications.

TheIrishJudicialStudiesJournalisalegalpublicationaimedattheIrishjudiciaryandproducedundertheauspicesoftheJudicialStudiesInstitute,astatutorybodywiththefunctionoforganisingtraining,seminarsandstudyvisits.ThejournalaimstoprovideIrishjudgeswithinformationandopinionsthatarerelevantandusefultothemintheirworkandispublishedbyaneditorialteamoftheUniversityofLimerick.SupremeCourtmembersoftheeditorialboardaretheChiefJustice(exofficio)andMr.JusticePeterCharleton.TwoeditionsoftheIJSJwerepublishedin2019.ThefirstincludesanarticlebyMr.JusticeCharletonwithMs.CiaraHerlihyentitled‘Truthbetold:Understandingtruthintheageofpost-truthpolitics’.Thesecond2019editionisabilingualpublicationdrawnfrompapersgivenattheFranco-British-IrishJudicialCooperationCommitteeColloqueheldinDublinin2017.

OtherpublicationsofmembersoftheCourtin2019included:anarticlebyMr.JusticeCharletonandJudicial Assistants CiaraHerlihy and Paul Carey on ‘Clocha Ceangailte agusMadraí Scaoilte orHowTribunalsofInquiryRanAwayfromUs’ intheDublinUniversityLawJournal;areviewbyMr.JusticeMacMenaminof‘JuriesinIreland:LawPersonsandLawintheLongNineteenthCentury’byDr.NiamhHowlinfortheLawandHistoryReviewpublishedbyCambridgeUniversityPress;andtheChiefJustice’scontributionattheColloquiumtomarkthe30thanniversaryoftheGeneralCourtoftheCJEUon‘DigitalTechnologyandtheQualityofJudicialDecisions’.

ForewordswrittenbymembersoftheCourtincludedforewordsbytheChiefJusticeto‘Enforcementof Judgments’ (2nd ed.) by SamCollins and ‘Internet Law’ byMichaelO’Doherty andbyMr. JusticeO’Donnellto‘NationalSecurityLawinIreland’byEoinO’Connorand‘CivilProceedingsandtheState’(3rded.)byAnthonyM.CollinsandJamesO’Reilly.


AmongseveralpapersdeliveredbyjudgesoftheSupremeCourtin2019wereakeynoteaddressbytheChiefJusticeattheBurrenLawSchoolonthepillarswhichsupporttheadministrationofjusticeandtheJohnHumelecturedeliveredbyMr.JusticeCharletonattheMacGillSummerSchoolontribunalsofinquiry.

The Honorable Society of King’s Inns

TheHonorable Societyof King’s Inns is the institutionof legal educationwith responsibility for thetraining of barristers in Ireland. It also offers a Diploma in Legal Studies and a range of advanceddiploma courses for both legally qualified and non–legally qualified participants. King’s Inns iscomprisedofbarristers,studentsandbenchers,whichincludeallofthejudgesoftheSupremeCourt,CourtofAppealandHighCourt.MembersoftheSupremeCourtandotherseniorjudgesserveonacommitteesofKing’sInnswhich,in2019,includedMs.JusticeFinlayGeoghegan’smembershipoftheStandingCommitteeuntilherretirement,Ms.JusticeO’Malley’smembershipoftheEducationAppealsBoard,Mr.JusticeMcMenamin’smembershipoftheDisciplinaryCommittee.MsJusticeBaker,whowas appointed a judge of the Supreme Court in December 2019 was amember of the EducationCommitteeandLibraryCommitteein2019.

TheaffairsofKing’sInnsaremanagedbyaCouncilwhichincludesaJudicialBenchersPanelofwhichtheChiefJusticeisexofficioamember.

The Bar of Ireland and the Law Society of Ireland In Ireland,therearetwobranchesoftheIrish legalprofession–barristersandsolicitors.TheBarofIrelandisanindependentreferralbarofwhichapproximately2,200practisingbarristersaremembers.TheLawSocietyistheeducational,representativeandregulatorybodyofthesolicitors'professioninIreland.MembersoftheSupremeCourtcooperatewiththepractisingprofessionsprimarilythroughparticipationineducationandoutreachinitiativesofTheBarofIrelandandtheLawSociety.

Onesuch initiative is theBarof IrelandLawandWomenMentoringprogrammeforwhichMr.JusticeMacMenaminandMs.JusticeDunneactasmentors.

TheChiefJusticeandMs.JusticeDunnearementorsfortheDenhamFellowship.The programme, named after Ms.Justice Susan Denham, former ChiefJustice,whichisoperatedbyTheBarofIreland in association with TheHonorableSocietyofKing’sInns,assistsannually two aspiring barristers whocome from socio-economicallydisadvantaged backgrounds to gainaccesstoprofessionallegaleducationattheKing’sInnsandprofessionalpracticeattheLawLibrary.

L-R The Attorney General, Seamus Woulfe SC, The Rt. Hon. Sir Declan Morgan, Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland and Mr. Justice Frank Clarke, Chief Justice at the Construction Bar Association Annual Conference.


TheChief JusticechairedaPublic lectureon ‘Climate Justice and Human RightsLawyering‘ by Philip Alston, UnitedNations Special Rapporteur on extremepoverty and human rights, organised byTheBarofIreland.HealsoaddressedtheConstruction Bar Association Annualconference, the Sports Law Conferenceand presented certificates to 100transitionyearstudentswhoparticipatedin The Bar of Ireland’s ‘Look into Law’programme.

Healsopresentedontheimplicationsandopportunities for Ireland as anInternational Dispute Resolution Centrepost Brexit at the Law Society LitigationCommittee/Law Society ProfessionalTrainingannualLitigationUpdateseminar.

Mr.JusticeO’DonnellchairedTheBar’s inaugural Immigration,Asylum and Citizenship BarAssociation Conference andMs.Justice Irvine,Ms. JusticeDunneandMr.JusticeO’Donnell jointlychaired an Advanced AdvocacySeminaronAppellateAdvocacy.

Mr. Justice Donal O’Donnell at the Immigration, Asylum and Citizenship Bar Association Conference

Mr. Justice Frank Clarke, Chief Justice, addressing the Law Society of Ireland’s Litigation Annual Conference in October 2019.


Faculty of Notaries Public

A Notary Public is a public officerconstitutedbylawtoservethepublicin non-contentious matters usuallyconcerned with foreign orinternationalbusiness.TheFacultyofNotariesPublicisresponsibleforthepromotion, advancement andregulationoftheprofessionofNotaryPublic in Irelandand the InstituteofNotarial Studies, a division of theFaculty, has the role of preparingcandidatenotariesforentry intotheprofession.TheNotarialProfessionalCourse aligned with the Diploma inNotarial Law & Practice (Dip.N.L.) istheentryroutetotheprofessionandthe final stage of the process ofappointment as a Notary PublicinvolvesaformalpetitiontotheChiefJustice in open court on aNotice ofMotion.

Graduates of the Notarial Professional Course and the Diploma in Notarial Law & Practice for 2019-2020 with the Chief Justice; Dean of the Faculty of Notaries Public in Ireland, Ms Mary Casey; Deputy Dean Justin McKenna; Dean Emeritus Michael V O'Mahony; Dr Eamonn G Hall, Director of the Institute of Notarial Studies (Ireland); Dean Emeritus E Rory O'Connor; Secretary to the Faculty, Michael M Moran and other members of the Governing Council of the Faculty. Credit: Tutor Images


Chief Justice’s Summer Internship Programme for Law Students

TheChiefJusticewelcomedtwentythreelawstudentsforaone-monthinternshipprogrammeintheSuperior Courts that began in June. This yearmarked the seventh year since the Programmewasinitiated. The Law Schools of NUI Galway, Dublin City University, Maynooth University, UniversityCollege Dublin, University College Cork, Trinity College Dublin and the University of Limerick eachnominatedtwostudentstoparticipateintheprogramme.Asinpreviousyears,studentsfromFordhamUniversity,NewYork,BangorUniversity,WalesandtheUniversityofMissouriKansasCitybroughtanaddedinternationaldimensiontotheprogramme.EachinternwasassignedtoajudgeoftheSuperiorCourts.

Duringtheinternshipprogramme,internsobservedcourtproceedings,conductedlegalresearchandassisted their assigned judges by completing research tasks. Events organised for the programmeincluded the Hardiman Lecture series, tours of the Four Courts and Green Street Courthouse,observationsofsittingsoftheDrugTreatmentCourtandtalksbyjudicialassistantsontheirroles.Theprogrammeprovidedinternswithauniqueopportunitytogainpracticalexperienceofthelawandtoallow interns gain an insight into the respective roles of officers of the court, with the view toconsideringpotentialfuturecareerpathsinlaw.Manyoftheparticipatinginternswerestruckbytheuniquenessoftheinternshipprogrammeinthatitprovidedthemwithanopportunitytoengageonaone-to-onebasiswithmembersof the judiciary in relation to theirexperienceson theprogramme,fromobservingcourthearingstobeingtaskedwithcompletingaresearchexercise.

Onestudentremarked:“Having justcompletedtheChief Justice’sSummer Internship forLawStudents, I’vehadanopportunitytoreflectonhowuniqueanopportunitythiswas.Thefacilityofengagingdirectlywithmembersofthejudiciary,discussingcasesthatarebeforethemandgettinganinsightintothe process by which they decide those cases was a fascinating experience. Visits to theCriminalCourtsofJusticeandtheDrugTreatmentCourtprovidedsomewelcomediversitytotheprogramme.On thewhole, itwasahugelyworthwhileexperience, andone that I’ll becertaintorecommendtothoseconsideringapplyinginfutureyears.”JoshuaKieran-Glennon,UniversityCollegeDublin

ReflectingonhertimeontheInternshipProgramme,AoifeNíDhonailesaid:

“Iknewmyexperiencewouldbeunforgettable,butIdidn’texpectittobeasmemorableasitwas.Notonlydidwereceiveafantasticinsightintothecourts,wewerealsoexposedtoarangeofotheropportunitiessuchaslecturesfromesteemedjudgesandbarristers.TheseaffordedusaglimpseintotheworkingsofthecourtsinIrelandandthemanydifferentelementsthatmake up the Irish courts system. The Internship Programmewas undoubtedly a once in alifetime opportunity to gain an insight into the inner workings of the courts. The level ofexposurethattheinternswereaffordedintotheworkofajudgeisatrulyuniqueaspectoftheProgrammeandanexperienceIwillnotforget.”


The Chief Justice pictured in the Hugh Kennedy Court with: Seated L to R: Lisa Boylan (Maynooth), Eilbhe Harrington (UL); Patrick Conboy (Office of the Chief Justice), Michael Boland (UCC), Awen Edwards (Bangor), Ellen Coll (TCD), Aaron Flanagan (Bangor), Caitríona O’Sullivan (UCC), Padraic Burke (DCU), Paul Mulready (DCU), Peo Mesepele (NUI Galway), Haley Tarvin (Missouri), Sarah Patton (UCD), Charles Coogan (TCD), Krista Dooley (Maynooth), Joshua Kieran-Glennon (UCD) Ruth Coughlan (TCD), Aoife Ní Dhonaile (NUI Galway), Sinéad Mulcahy (UL), Shannon Gundy (Missouri), Katrina Bader (Fordham), Amir Khedmati (Fordham), David Garfinkel (Fordham). Absent from photograph: Al-Daana Al-Mulla (Fordham).

Anewadditiontothisyear’sprogrammewasadedicateddayforparticipatinginternsintheCriminalCourtsofJustice.ThedaybeganwithInternsmeetingwiththeDirectorofPublicProsecutions,ClaireLoftus, who spoke to the Interns about her role and that of her office. Interns then observedproceedingsoftheDistrictCourt,CircuitCriminalCourtandtheSpecialCriminalCourt.InternswereprovidedwithatouroftheVictimSupportfacilitiesintheCCJandmetwiththestaffofV-SAC(VictimSupportAtCourt),whospokeabouttheimportanceofthepracticalassistancetheyprovidedtovictimswhilst in court. The day concluded with interns being addressed by practitioners from both legalprofessionswhopracticepredominantlyincriminallaw.ThisseriesofeventsprovidedinternswithanopportunitytogainadeeperunderstandingoftheIrishcriminaljusticesystem.


The Hardiman Lecture Series

AlectureseriesorganisedbyMr.JusticePeterCharletonformsanimportantpartoftheChiefJustice’sSummerInternshipProgramme.ThelecturestookplacetwiceaweekintheFourCourtsduringthecourseoftheone-monthprogrammeinhonourofthelateMr.JusticeAdrianHardiman,formerjudgeoftheSupremeCourt,whoparticipatedasaspeakerinallpreviousyearsoftheprogrammeduringhislife.

Thelectureswereopentostudentinterns,judges,judicial assistants, researchers, other CourtsService staff and member of The Bar and LawSociety

In2019,theseriesincludedthefollowingdiverserange of lectures delivered by members of theJudiciaryandlegalpractitioners:

• 'TheLifeandLegalCasesofDanielO’Connell',PaulGallagher,S.C.;• ‘TheRoleoftheAttorneyGeneral’,SéamusWoulfeS.C.,AttorneyGeneral;• TheIranHostageCrisis:444DaysthatRuinedaPresidency’,TheHon.Mr.JusticePeter

Charleton;• ‘TheTrialandConductofPersonalInjuriesLitigation’,TheHon.Ms.JusticeBronaghO’Hanlon;• TheRoleandResponsibilityoftheStateinLitigation’,TheHon.Ms.JusticeDeirdreMurphy;• ‘TheTrialofRogerCasement’,TheHon.Mr.JusticeDonalO’Donnell;• ‘TheArtofAdvocacy’,MichaelCollinsS.C.

Launch of the OUTLaw Network

In January 2019, Chief Justice Frank ClarkeattendedthelaunchofOUTLawNetwork,anetworktoconnectLGBT+peopleandalliesworking in the Irish legal sector.OUTLaw’smissionistopromoteanddrivetheinclusionof LGBT+ people across the Irish legalcommunity. Its objectives include bringingtogetherLGBT+colleaguesandalliesacrossthe Irish legal sector to foster anenvironment of inclusion, build theirprofessional networks, avail of career andleadership development opportunities andto promote Ireland’s legal profession as adestination of choice for LGBT+ people inIreland.

Mr. Justice Peter Charleton’s lecture in Court 2, the Four Courts for the 2019 Hardiman Lecture series chaired by Ms. Justice Iseult O’Malley.

Chief Justice Frank Clarke addressing guests at the launch of the OUTLaw Network in January 2019.


4

Part 4International Engagement


International Engagement

TheSupremeCourtcooperateswithotherseniorcourtsacrosstheEuropeanUnionandwiththe Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg through the formal avenue ofdialogue facilitated by the preliminary reference system provided for in Article 267 of theTreatyontheFunctionoftheEuropeanUnion.Moreover,highercourtsofcountrieswithinthecommon lawworld frequently refer to judgmentsofother jurisdictionswhere thesameorsimilarissuesareaddressed.Suchjudgments,althoughnotbinding,areconsideredtobeofpersuasive authority. Additionally, Irish courtsmust, under the provisions of the EuropeanConvention on Human Rights Act 2003, have regard to the jurisprudence of the Court ofHumanRights in Strasbourg.However,beyond these formal legal relationships, there is anincreasing levelofco-operationbetweentheSupremeCourtandotherseniorcourtswhichprincipally takes place through regular or occasional bilateral meetings or through themembershipoftheSupremeCourtofinternationalbodies.

International Organisations

The Supreme Court cooperates on amultilateral basis via itsmembership of a number ofinternational networks and organisations which facilitate cooperation with courts andinstitutions in other jurisdictions. Given the wide-ranging nature of the jurisdiction of theSupremeCourt,theareaoflawassociatedwitheachoftheseorganisationsvaries.However,theyhaveincommontheaimofprovidingaforuminwhichcourtsofsimilarjurisdictioncanmeetanddiscusstheirwork,thenatureoftheirfunctionsandtheorganisationoftheirsystemsandtopromotedialoguebetweensuchcourts.

There aremany international bodies and networks with which individualmembers of theJudiciaryineachofthefivecourtsofIrelandregularlyengage.SomeorganisationsofwhichtheSupremeCourtortheChiefJusticeisamemberinclude:

ACA-Europe -anorganisationcomprisedof theCouncilsofStateor theSupreme administrative jurisdictions of each of the members of theEuropeanUnionandtheCourtsofJusticeoftheEuropeanUnion.ThroughACA-Europe, the SupremeCourt exchanges views and informationwith

othermember institutionson jurisprudence,organisationand functioning,particularlywithregardtoEUlaw.In2018,ACA-EuropeCorrespondentsonbehalfoftheSupremeCourt,theChiefJustice,Ms.JusticeElizabethDunneandMs.JusticeMaryIrvineattendedanumberofACA-EuropeseminarsandparticipatedinanumberofprojectsandstudiesunderwhichACA-EuropeengageswithEU institutions.TheSupremeCourtof IrelandwelcomedmembersofACA-EuropetoDublininMarch2019foraseminaronthetopicof‘HowCourtsDecide:thedecision-makingprocessesofSupremeAdministrativeCourts’.


NetworkofthePresidentsoftheSupremeJudicialCourtsoftheEuropeanUnion–anetworkofthePresidentsoftheSupremeCourtsofEUMemberStateswith general jurisdiction (as opposed to constitutional courts orcourtswithfinal jurisdiction inparticularareasof law,suchassupreme

administrative courts). Supreme Court Presidents, including the Chief Justice of Ireland,participateinmeetingsandexchangeinformationthroughthisnetwork,whichalsoconsultswithinstitutionsoftheEU.TheChiefJusticeisamemberoftheBoardoftheNetwork.

Judicial Network of the European Union – an association which wasestablishedontheinitiativeofthePresidentoftheCourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanUnion and the Presidents of theConstitutional and SupremeCourtsofEUMemberStatesattheMeetingofJudgeshostedbytheCourtof Justice in 2017. The JNEU is based on an internet site designed to

promotegreaterknowledge,inparticularfromacomparativelawperspective,oflawandlegalsystemsofMemberStatesandcontributetothedisseminationofEUlawasappliedbytheCourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanUnionandthenationalcourts.

Conference of European Constitutional Courts - an organisationcomprised of European constitutional or equivalent courts with afunctionofconstitutionalreview.Meetingsandexchangeofinformationonissuesrelatingtothemethodsandpracticeofconstitutionalrevieware the key feature of this organisation. The Conference is currently

chairedbytheConstitutionalCourtoftheCzechRepublicwhichwillhosttheXVIIIthCongressin2020.

VeniceCommission JointCouncilonConstitutional JusticeandWorldConference of Constitutional Justice – Through the Joint Council onConstitutional Justice, the Supreme Court cooperates withconstitutional courtsandcourtsofequivalent jurisdiction inMember

States of the Venice Commission, the Council of Europe’s advisory body on constitutionalmatters.Thisisprimarilyachievedthroughthesharingofinformationbetweenliaisonofficersofmembercourts,includingofficialsintheOfficeoftheChiefJusticeofIreland.Liaisonofficerspreparesummariesofimportantconstitutionalcases,whicharepublishedbythesecretariatoftheJCCJinbulletins.Liaisonofficersalsoposeandanswerquestionsviaanumberofforaonarestrictedwebsite.LiaisonOfficersonbehalfoftheSupremeCourtofIrelandattendedthe18thmeetingoftheJointCouncilonConstitutionalJusticehostedbytheConstitutionalCourtof Italy in2019,where theydeliveredapresentationon the topicof ‘Independenceof theJudiciaryandtheroleofConstitutionalCourts’.


ACA-Europe Seminar hosted by the Supreme Court of Ireland on ‘How our Courts Decide: The Decision-making Processes of Supreme Administrative Courts’

AseminarorganisedbyACA-EuropeandtheSupremeCourtof Irelandon ‘HowourCourtsDecide:TheDecision-makingProcessesofSupremeAdministrativeCourts’washeldinDublinonthe25thand26thMarch2019.Beforetheseminar,morethan30ofthedelegatesavailedoftheopportunitytoobserveahearingofanadministrativelawcaseintheSupremeCourtofIreland.

Over40membersofSupremeAdministrativeCourtsandCouncilsofStatefrom28countriesin Europe gathered for the seminar in the historic setting of Dublin Castle to discuss theprocesses and practices they each follow in reaching their decisions. The seminar was acompanion seminar to seminars hosted in 2019 by the Federal Administrative Court ofGermanyon‘FunctionsofandAccesstoSupremeAdministrativeCourts’andbytheSupremeAdministrativeCourtoftheCzechRepublicon‘MeasurestoFacilitateandRestrictAccesstoAdministrativeCourts’.Thesessionsconcerningvariousspecificaspectsofthedecision-makingpractices of Supreme Administrative Courts and Councils of State allowed participants tocompare and contrast the approaches taken in their own institutions and gain a betterunderstandingoftheprocessesofinstitutionsinotherACAmemberandObserverinstitutions.

Chief Justice of Ireland, Mr. Justice Frank Clarke, addressing delegates at the opening session of the ACA-Europe Seminar, ‘How our Courts Decide: The Decision-making Processes of Supreme Administrative Courts’, held in Dublin Castle in March 2019.


Theseminaropenedwithwelcomingremarks from Chief Justice FrankClarke and Mr. Klaus Rennert,President of the FederalAdministrative Court of GermanyandofACA-Europe(picturedleft).Inthefirstsession,ChiefJusticeClarkepresented the general reportcompiled by Irish academics, Dr.David Kenny, Trinity College DublinandDr.ÁineRyall,UniversityCollegeCork,attherequestoftheSupremeCourtofIreland.Thegeneralreport,which formed the basis of the

seminar,collatedandsynthesisednationalreportsprovidedby28jurisdictionsinresponsetoaquestionnairewhichaskedmembersandObserversofACA-Europetoprovideaccountsoftheirprocessesandpracticesrelatingtotheirdecision-making.

ChiefJusticeClarkeprovidedanoverviewofthegeneralreportandhighlightedsomeuniversaltrends illustrated by the national reports, such as: the increasing caseload of memberinstitutionsandmeasuresadoptedtocopewiththis;increasinguseandrelianceonresearchsupport;anabilitytoraisepointsexofficioinatleastsomecircumstances;andtheissuanceofjudgment in the name of the institution rather than any one judge in most jurisdictions.Divergence in a number of areas as referred to in the report were also noted, such as:differencesinthenumberofjudges,inthenumberofcases,thenatureoftheinstitutionsandlegalsystemsandtheuseandimportanceoforalhearingsanddissentingjudgments.

In the second session on‘ResearchPractice’,chairedbyMr. Francis Delaporte,President of theAdministrative Court ofLuxembourg (pictured left),four presenters outlined theavailability, the nature of andthe roles fulfilled by legalsupport staff in theirinstitutions. Mr. RogerStevens,FirstPresidentoftheBelgian Council of State, Mr.Bart-Jan van Ettekoven,PresidentoftheAdministrative

JurisdictionDivisionoftheNetherlandsCouncilofState,Ms.SkirgaileŽalimienė,judgeoftheSupremeAdministrativeCourtofLithuaniaandLadyHale,PresidentoftheSupremeCourtofthe United Kingdom highlighted particularly interesting and contrasting features of their

(L-R) Francis Delaporte, President of the Administrative Court of Luxembourg, Roger Stevens, First President of the Council of State of Belgium, Bart-Jan van Ettekoven, Chair of the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State of the Netherlands.

Mr. Klaus Rennert, President of the Federal Administrative Court of Germany and ACA-Europe, and Mr. Justice Frank Clarke, Chief Justice of Ireland


systems. First President Stevens described the ‘double examination’ system in the BelgianCouncilofState,whichinvolvesathoroughpreliminaryexaminationbyabodyofmagistratesknownastheAuditoratandlaterthepreparationofpreliminarydraftjudgmentsbyattachés.Mr.Gounindescribeda teameffort in theDutchCouncilofState, involving thedraftingofjudgmentsbysupportlawyers,theoralhearingsbyjudgesassistedbysupportlawyers,judicialdeliberationinchambersassistedbysupportlawyers,draftingofjudgmentsbysupportlawyersfollowedbythedecisionmadebythejudge.

Lady Hale, President of theSupreme Court of the UnitedKingdom(picturedontheright)explained the role of JudicialAssistants in the SupremeCourt of theUnited Kingdom,who provide benchmemoranda summarisingapplications for permission toappeal,prepare summariesofcases and carry out research.Ms. Žalimienė referred to theworkundertakenbyassistants,

consultantsandadvisorswhoprovideadministrativeassistanceandlegalresearchsupporttojudgesoftheSupremeAdministrativeCourtofLithuania, inadditiontherelationshipoftheCourt with the Faculty of Law of Vilnius University which gives rise to interns serving asparalegalsintheCourt.Therewaslivelydiscussionbetweenallparticipantsoftheappropriateroleandlimitsofresearchassistance.

‘TheAllocationofRolesofDecision-Makers’wasthetopicofthethirdsession,chairedbyMr.KariKuusiniemi,PresidentoftheSupremeAdministrativeCourtofFinland.Mr.FilippoPatroniGriffi,PresidentoftheCouncilofStateofItaly,Mr.AleksandrsPotaičuks,LegalCounselattheSupremeCourtofLatviaandMr.JacekChlebny,VicePresidentoftheSupremeAdministrativeCourtofPolanddeliveredpresentationsforthissessionwhichinvolvedadiscussionoftheuseandnatureofchambersordivisionsandareasofspecialisation,theuseofGrandChambersorplenary sessions and the effect of theway in which roles are allocated todecision-makers on workload. Thepresentations highlighted interestingpractices in some institutions, such astheorganisationandfunctioningofthePlenary Assembly described byPresident Patroni Griffi, which is aspecialjurisdictionalbodyoftheItalianCouncil of State with a function ofguaranteeinguniformityandstabilityofcase-lawintheadministrativesystem.

Mr. Filippo Patroni Griffi, President, and Ms. Marina Perrelli, Counsellor, Council of State of Italy

Judge Skirgaile Zalimiene (on the left) and Lady Brenda Hale, President of Supreme Court of the United Kingdom


Vice President Chlebny (in centre of picture)provided an overviewof how the allocation ofrolesisstructuredintheSupremeAdministrativeCourtofPoland,aninstitutionof107judgeswiththreechambersconsistingoftwodivisions,soasto deal with the workload of the Court. Mr.Potaičuks gave an account of the situation inLatvia,wheretheDepartmentofAdministrativeCases does not have separate divisions, butrather each judge has his or her own area ofspecialisation. While cases are generallyadjudicatedbythreejudges,thelawprovidesforreferralofacasetoaplenarysittingwherethethree judgecourtdoesnot reachaunanimousopinion.

In the final session of the seminar, chaired by Ms. Justice Elizabeth Dunne, participantsdiscussed‘TheDeliberativeProcess’,includingwhetheroralhearingsareused,whetherandhowoftenjudgesmeetandthewayinwhichtheydiscusscases;whethertheinstitutionscanraiseissuesoftheirownmotionandtheuseofdissentingopinions.Presentationsweregivenby Mr. Yves Gounin, International Relations Delegate at the French Council of State, Mr.Carsten Günther, judge of the Federal Administrative Court of Germany, Mr. MagnusMatningsdal,judgeoftheSupremeCourtofNorwayandMs.HelenaJäderblom,PresidentoftheSupremeAdministrativeCourtofSweden.Thissessionshedlightoninterestingdiversityofpracticeacrossthejurisdictions.Forexample,11jurisdictionshaveoralhearingsineitherallormost cases 11 countries have no oral hearings and France sits in themiddle,with oralhearings in50% in cases. The roughly evendivisionon thequestionofwhetherdissentingjudgmentsareusedprovidedanopportunityforlivelyexchangeofviewsastothemeritsofdissentingopinions.

TheseminarendedwithconcludingremarksbyChiefJusticeFrankClarkeandPresidentKlausRennertwhoeachnotedthebenefitswhichhadarisenoutoftheseminarandtheopportunityfor furtherdiscussion inBerlinandonotheroccasions in the futureof theproceduresandpracticeswhichultimatelyleadtothedecisionsofSupremeAdministrativeCourtsandCouncilsofState.

(L-R) Justice Magnus Matningsdal, Supreme Court of Norway, Mr. Jacek Chlebny, Vice President of Supreme Administrative Court of Poland, Ms. Marta Kulikowska, Head of Domestic and Foreign Relations, Supreme Administrative Court of Poland


Meetings with Judiciary of other Jurisdictions

TheSupremeCourtbenefits fromregularbilateralmeetingswithneighbouring jurisdictionsthrough,forexample,participatinginbiennialmeetingswithseniormembersoftheJudiciaryof the United Kingdom. Such longstanding bilateral engagement is of utmost importancehaving regard toour sharedhistory, closegeographicalproximityand similar legal systemswhichshareacommonlawlegaltradition.

The Judiciaryof Irelandalsobenefits fromtrilateralengagementunder theComitéFranco-Britannique-Irlandais,anorganisationwhichstrengthenscooperationbetweenjudgesofthehighest courts of France, the United Kingdom and Ireland through the organisation ofColloquia.

In 2019, a delegation of theJudiciaryofIrelandledbytheChiefJusticeattendedtheFrancoBritishIrish Colloque which was held inLondon. The Colloque dealt withthetopicof‘HumanTraffickingandModernSlavery’andthepapersofspeakerswerepublishedinEnglishandinFrenchinaspecialeditionofthe Irish Judicial Studies Journal,whichisavailableatwww.ijsj.ie.

Delegates posing for a group photograph at the conclusion of the ACA-Europe seminar in Dublin Castle


Judicial exchange programmes

In2019,theSupremeCourtcontinueditspracticeofhostingjudgesfromothercountriesforjudicial study visits organised as part of the Supreme Court’smembership of internationalorganisations.InNovember2019,theCourthostedMsTeresaBielska-Sobkowicz,JudgeoftheSupremeCourtofPolandandMs.MariaOlindaGarcia,JudgeoftheSupremeCourtofPortugalonatwoweekexchangeprogrammeorganisedundertheNetworkofthePresidentsoftheSupremeJudicialCourtsoftheEuropeanUnion,andMs.GerdyJurgens,JudgeoftheCouncilofStateofTheNetherlandsunderanACA-Europeprogramme.

The visiting judges observed proceedings in all five courts of Ireland and met with thePresidentsandmembersoftheSupremeCourt,CourtsofAppealandHighCourts,inadditiontoothermembersoftheJudiciary,todiscusstheworkoftheIrishcourtsandshareinformationonpracticesandexperience.CourtsServiceofficials,includingstaffoftheChiefJustice’sOffice,Registrars, members of the Reform and Development Directorate and Judicial AssistantsprovidedtoursandinformationsessionsontheIrishlegalsystem,includingtheformatofcourthearingsandprocessingofcasesintheofficesoftheSupremeCourtandCourtofAppeal.

ThevisitingjudgesalsoattendedapublichearingoftheDisclosuresTribunalatDublinCastle,wheretheymettheChairman,Mr.JusticeSeanRyan,theTribunallegalteamandstaff.

ThejudgesattendedtheCommitteeforJudicialStudiesAnnualConferenceoftheJudiciaryasguestsandenjoyedthetraditionofdiningattheHonorableSocietyofKing’sInns.

Visits to the Supreme Court

The Court receivedmany international visitors throughout the year for which the JudicialSupportUnit of theCourt Service and theOffice of theChief Justice organised specificallytailoredprogrammes.ThevisitsinvolvedInformationSessionsprovidedbyJudicialAssistantsof the Judicial Research Office and Supreme Court, staff of the Reform and DevelopmentDirectorate,Registrarsof theSupremeCourtandCourtofAppealandobservationofcourtproceedingsandmeetingswithjudgesofeachoftheCourtsofIreland.

JudgesoftheSupremeCourtmetwithmembersoftheJudiciaryfromtheUnitedStatesofAmerica,China,Ukraine,Australia,theNetherlands,PolandandPortugalandgroupsoflawyersfromtheNetherlandsandFrance.VisitorsalsoincludedtheMinisterofJusticeandImmigrationofNorway,Mr.JøranKallmyr,adelegationoftheGermanandCzechParliamentariansandadelegationoftheCommitteeonConstitutionalandLegalAffairsoftheChamberofDeputiesoftheParliamentoftheCzechRepublic.


Mr. Justice MacMenamin and Chief Justice Roberts at the Supreme Court of the United States on the occasion of a courtesy visit to the Supreme Court of the United States

The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice MacMenamin in the Supreme Court with members of the Ukrainian Judiciary undertaking a study visit to Ireland organised by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in conjunction with the EU Advisory Mission Ukraine. Attendance of Judges of the Supreme Court an international events

JudgesoftheSupremeCourtalsoattendedeventsoverseasthroughouttheyear.

InadditiontotheengagementsoftheChiefJusticereferred to on page 34 of this report, the ChiefJustice, Ms. Justice Dunne and Ms. Justice Irvineattended colloquia and seminars, andparticipatedin working groups, of ACA Europe. Such groupsincludedaWorkingGrouponBetterRegulationandon a transversal study throughwhich ACA-Europemembers will contribute to the EU JusticeScoreboard.

In April 2019, Mr. Justice MacMenamin paid acourtesy visit to the SupremeCourt of theUnitedStates where he and Chief Justice John RobertsdiscussedmattersofmutualinteresttotheIrishandUS legal systems. He also represented the IrishJudiciaryataseminarinDallas,TexasontheBrexitlegal services initiative, organised by the Bar ofIreland, the Law Society, and the Department ofJustice.


5

Part 5Supporting the Supreme Court —The Courts Service


Supporting the Supreme Court – The Courts Service The Supreme Court is supported by the Courts Service, the organisation which isresponsiblefortheadministrationandmanagementofallcourtsinIreland.

The Courts Service TheCourtsService isan independentbodyestablishedpursuanttotheCourtsServiceAct,1998. Itmanages all aspects of court activities, with the exception of judicial functions, which is a matterexclusivelyforthejudiciary.ThefunctionsoftheCourtsServiceareto:

• managetheCourts;• providesupportservicesforJudges;• provideinformationontheCourtssystemtothepublic;• provide,manageandmaintaincourtbuildings;• providefacilitiesforusersoftheCourts;and• performsuchotherfunctionsasareconferredonitbyanyotherenactment.

TheCourtServiceBoardischairedbytheChiefJusticeandiscomprisedof17othermembers,includingthecourtPresidents,judicialrepresentativesfromeachcourt,astaffrepresentative,arepresentativeoftheMinisterforJusticeandrepresentativesfromthelegalprofessions,tradeunionsandbusinessworld.ThefunctionoftheBoardistoconsideranddeterminepolicyinrelationtotheService,andtooverseetheimplementationofthatpolicybytheChiefExecutiveOfficer.CourtsServicestaffarecivilservantsoftheState.

TheChiefExecutiveOfficerisresponsiblefortheimplementationofpoliciesapprovedbytheBoard,theday-to-daymanagementofthestaff,administrationandbusinessoftheService.ChiefExecutiveOfficer,BrendanRyan retired inSeptember2019 following tenyearsasCEOof theService,havingcommencedhisworksupportingthecourtsin1981intheDepartmentofJusticebefore

Chief Justice Frank Clarke with Brendan Ryan on the occasion

of his retirement as Chief Executive Officer of the Courts

Service in September 2019


theestablishmentoftheCourtService.AngelaDenningreplacedMr.Ryanas CEO in 2019. Ms. Denning worked for many years as a High CourtRegistrar and worked in the Strategic Information Office of An GardaSíochána and the Government Reform Unit of the Department ofExpenditureandPublicReformbeforere-joiningtheCourtsServicein2019onherappointmentasCEO.TheChiefExecutiveOfficerissupportedbytheSeniorManagementTeamcomprisingHeadofSuperiorCourtsOperations,HeadofCircuitCourtandDistrictCourtOperations,HeadofStrategyandReform,HeadofResourceManagement and Head of Infrastructure Services. The Chief ExecutiveOfficer liaisescloselywiththeChiefJustice, judgesoftheSupremeCourtandstaffoftherelevantofficesinsupportingtheCourt.

A Judicial Support Unit within the Office of the Chief Executiveprovidessupporttojudgesofalljurisdictions,includingtheSupremeCourt in a wide variety of areas, such as foreign travel, protocolmatters,internalandexternalliaisonandcoordinationofvisits.

OfficesandunitsoftheCourtsServicecollaborativelyprovidesupporttotheSupremeCourtandothercourts.However,certaindirectorates,officesandofficialsprovidesupportdirectlytotheCourtonadailybasis.

Registrar of the Supreme Court

ThepositionofRegistraroftheSupremeCourtisastatutoryoneandtheRegistrarhassuperintendenceandcontroloftheOfficeoftheSupremeCourt.HeisresponsibletotheChiefJusticeforthebusinessoftheCourttransactedintheOffice.HeisalsosubjecttothegeneraldirectionoftheCourtsServiceformattersofgeneraladministration.ThecurrentRegistrarisJohnMahon.

Chief Justice Frank Clarke with Registrar of the Supreme Court John Mahon

Angela Denning Chief Executive Officer

of the Courts Service


Supreme Court Office The Supreme Court Officeprovidesadministrativeandregistry support to theCourt. It has a public officewhereapplicationsforleaveto appeal and appealdocumentation are filed.The Registrar is supportedbyanAssistantRegistrarandsix additional members ofstaff.The Rules of Court requirethatallapplications,appealsand other matters beforetheSupremeCourtarepreparedforhearingordeterminationinamannerwhichisjust,expeditiousandlikelytominimisethecostsoftheproceedings.TheOfficeanditsstaffisresponsibleforthefollowingfunctions:

• ReviewingfilingsanddocumentationforcompliancewiththerulesandpracticeoftheCourt.• Managingapplicationsforleavetoappealandappealstoensurethattheyareprogressedfairly

andefficiently.• Listingofapplicationsandappeals.• IssuingandpublicationoftheCourt’sdeterminationsandjudgments• DraftingandfinalisationoftheCourt’sorders.• Enrollingof the textof theConstitutionembodyingamendments inaccordancewithArticle

25.5.2°oftheConstitutionandenrollingofActsoftheOireachtasinaccordancewithArticle25.4.5°oftheConstitution.

• ProcessingofapplicationstobeappointedasaNotaryPublicoraCommissionerforOaths• Authenticating the signatures of Notaries or Commissioners on legal documents for use in

Irelandorotherjurisdictions.• SupportingprotocolfunctionsincludingtheswearinginofnewjudgesbytheChiefjusticeand

callstotheBarofIreland.

New Developments

New Practice Direction ArevisedPracticeDirection (SC19)wassignedby theChief Justiceandcame intoeffecton the4thJanuary,2019.Therevisionsinclude:

• Reductionsintimelimitstoexpeditetheleavestageoftheappealprocess.• Betterfocusedcasemanagementprovisionstoassurethejustandefficientmanagementof

appeals.


• provisions to ensure that necessary documentation relevant to the issues in the appeal isincludedintheappealbooks.

• ProvisionfortheassignmentofanApplicationsforLeaveJudgetodealwithmattersarisingpriortotheallocationoftheapplicationtoapaneloftheCourt.

• provisionstofacilitatetheelectronicfilingofleavetoappealdocumentation.

On-line filing of applications for leave to appeal Anewsystemthatallowspractitionerstofileapplicationsforleavetoappealelectronicallywasmadeavailable from the 4th February, 2019. It is now possible for practitioners to file all necessarydocumentationforfirststageoftheappealprocessinthisway.Thesystemwasintroducedonapilotbasisasaproofofconceptandduring2019theOfficeengagedwithpractitionersandtheLawSocietyof Irelandtoencourageoptimaluseof thenewsystem.Thisengagementwill intensify in2020andpractitionersareencouragedtofamiliarisethemselveswithandtoutilisethenewsystemwhenfilingapplicationsforleave.

6th Enrolment of the Constitution ThetextoftheConstitutionauthenticatedbythesignaturesoftheTaoiseachandoftheChiefJusticeandsignedbythePresidentofIrelandwasenrolledintheofficeoftheRegistraroftheSupremeCourtpursuanttoArticle2552°oftheConstitutiononthe13thdayofNovember,2019.Thistextisthe6thsuchenrolment.

Thetextsosignedandenrolledis,pursuanttoArticle2553°,conclusiveevidenceoftheConstitutionasatthatdateandsupersedesallpreviousenrolledtextsforthatpurpose.

ThefirstenrolledcopyoftheConstitutionwasauthenticatedbythesignaturesofthethenTaoiseach,ÉamonDeValera andof the thenChief Justice, Timothy Sullivan andof the thenChairmanofDáilÉireann,FrankFahy,onthe16thFebruary,1938andwasenrolledintheOfficepursuanttoArticle64(TransitoryProvisions).

Staff of the Supreme Court Office

L-R: John Mahon, Jason Emmett, Mary O’Donoghue,

Patricia Cuddihy, Sinead Mehlhorn, Sonia Murphy, Monica Litwin and Audrey

McKeon.


Office of the Chief Justice

TheChiefJustice,incarryingouthisjudicialandadministrativefunctionsatdomesticandinternationallevel,issupportedbyateamcomprising:

• SeniorExecutiveLegalOfficertotheChiefJustice,SarahroseMurphy,whoprovideslegalandadministrativesupporttotheChiefJusticeandotherjudgesnominatedbytheChiefJusticeinthe discharge of their international functions and their engagement with internationalorganisations and assists the Chief Justice in discharging domestic administrative andorganisationalfunctions;

• Executive Legal Officer to the Chief Justice, Patrick Conboy, who also provides legal andadministrativesupportinrespectofdomesticandinternationalaffairs;

• JudicialAssistant,RachaelO’Byrne,whoprovideslegalresearchassistancetotheChiefJustice.FormerJudicialAssistanttotheChiefJustice,LukeMcCanncompletedhistermduringtheyear;

• PrivateSecretary,TinaCrowther,whoprovidessecretarialsupporttotheChiefJustice.FormerPrivateSecretarytotheChiefJustice,CarolKelly,retiredin2019;

• TonyCarroll,UshertotheChiefJustice.

Office of the Chief Justice personnel L-R: Patrick Conboy, Tina Crowther, Chief Justice Frank Clarke, Sarahrose Murphy,

Rachael O’Byrne and Tony O’Carroll.


Superior Court Operations Directorate TheSuperiorCourtOperationsDirectorateprovidesadministrativesupportandresourcesfortheSupremeCourt,CourtofAppealandHighCourt.TheDirectorateisresponsibleformanagingtheofficesattachedtothesecourtsand the staffassociatedwith suchoffices, including judicial assistantsandsecretaries assigned to judges of the Supreme Court. The Head of theDirectorate,GeraldineHurleyandthreeothermembersoftheCourtServicecarryouttheday-to-dayworkoftheSuperiorCourtOperationsDirectorate.

Legal research management AHeadofLegalResearchandLibraryServices,LauraButler,wasappointedtotheCourtsServicein2019tofulfilaleadershipandmanagementroleinthe development and delivery of research and library services for the judiciary across all courtjurisdictions.Twolegalresearchmanagers,EmerGillenandJulietDwyer,werealsoappointedtocarryoutrolesofmanagingthelegalresearchandjudicialsupportservicesprovidedbytheJudicialResearchOfficeandJudicialAssistantstomembersoftheJudiciary.

Legal research managers and staff of the Superior Court Operations Directorate

L-R: Emer Gillen, Eoghan Fitzgerald, Juliet Dwyer, Sheila Kulkarni and Colin Mehigan. Absent from photograph is Juliet DuPreez

Geraldine Hurley Head of Superior Court Operations


Ushers

During2019,sixUshersprovidedpracticalsupporttojudgesoftheSupremeCourt.JohnFahey,UshertoMs.JusticeFinlayGeoghegan,retiredontheretirementofthejudge.Ingeneral,theroleofanUsherinvolvesattendingcourtwiththejudgestowhomheisassigned,maintainingorderincourt,assistingwithpapersandcorrespondenceofthejudge,directinglitigantstocourtandassistingwithmanagingthejudges’Chambers.

Judicial Secretaries Seven Judicial Secretaries provided administrative and secretarial assistance to the judges of theSupremeCourt in 2019. The responsibilities of the Judicial Secretary involve typing and formattingjudgmentsandmemorandadictatedbyJudges,maintainingdiariesandarrangingappointments.

L-R: Ushers of the Supreme Court Tony Carroll, Chris Maloney and Pat Fagan. Absent from photo are Seamus Finn, John Fahey and John O’Donovan.

Back L-R: Judicial Secretaries Gillian McDonnell and Tina Crowther Front L-R Sharon Hannon, Bernadette Hobbs, Margaret Kearns and Mary Gill.


Judicial Assistants During thecourseof2019,19 JudicialAssistants supported judgesof theSupremeCourt, includingthosewhoconcludedtheirpositionsasJudicialAssistantduringtheyear.TheworkofaJudicialAssistantvariesdependingontherequirementsofthejudgetowhomtheyareassigned.However,ittypicallyinvolvescarryingoutlegalresearch,thepreparationofpre-hearingmemorandaforjudgesinadvanceoforalhearingsandproof-readingjudgmentspriortotheirdelivery.JudicialAssistantsmustpossessalawdegreeataminimumoflevel8ontheNationalFrameworkofQualificationsoranappropriateprofessionalqualification,aswellasanextensiveknowledgeofIrishLawandtheIrishlegalsystem.In addition to work of a legal nature, a number of the Judicial Assistants undertake the functionstraditionallyundertakenbyCourtUshersas,sincetheenactmentoftheFinancialMeasuresinthePublicInterest (Amendment)Act2011,theassignmentofUshershasbeenreplacedbytherecruitmentofJudicialAssistants.Judicial Assistant are recruited by the Courts Service on a three-year non-renewable contract. TheCourts Service advertises competitions for the recruitment of Judicial Assistants on its website,www.courts.ie.

Judicial Assistants Back L-R: Hayley Dowling, Cormac Hickey, Seán Beatty, Iseult Browne, Hansi Fishcer Kerrance, Patricia Erasmus, Ceara Tonna Barthet Front L-R: Rachael O’Byrne, Shane Finn, Laurenz Boss. Absent from photograph is Giacomo Bonetto.


Judicial Assistants – a day in the life By Shane Finn, Judicial Assistant to the Supreme Court

A judicial assistant,assigned to a Judge of theSupreme Court, becomesinvolvedwithacaseassoonas an application for leaveto appeal is lodged by theparties. A panel of threejudges will consider eachapplication and whether itmeetstherequirementssetoutbytheConstitution.

InsuchcaseswheremyassignedJudge isamemberofapanel, Imaybeaskedtoresearchcertainpointsraisedintheapplicationortoprepareasummaryofthefacts.Afterthepanelhasreachedtheirdetermination,IwillbesentadraftofthewrittendeterminationbytheJudgetoproofreadtoensurethatitconformstothestandardformatusedfordeterminations.ThefinalversionisthensignedbythemostseniorjudgeonthepanelandthejudicialassistantconveysittotheSupremeCourtOfficeforpublishingandtonotifythepartiesoftheresult.

If leave to appeal is granted, casemanagement then begins. A judgewill be assigned as the casemanagementjudgeofaparticularcase,andtheirjudicialassistantassiststhemthroughoutthecasemanagementhearings.Themain roleof the judicial assistant, at this stage, is to review thepaperssubmittedandcomparethemtothestandardsrequiredbyPracticeDirectionSC19.Ithencheckthatthepaginationandtabulationmatchesthatsetoutinthescheduleofeachbooksubmitted,thattherearenopagesmissing,andthatauthoritiessubmittedaredonesointheproperformat(e.g.thereportedversionsofcasesareusedwheretheyareavailable),andthatanythingthathasbeenphotocopiedhasbeendoneinawaythatisreadable.Icompilealistofallpotentialissues,ifthereareany,Iwillpresentittomyassignedjudgeinamemorandum.Ifthepartiesneedtobeinstructedtomakeanycorrections,itissolelyforthejudgetodeterminesuch.

Onceacasehasprocessedthroughcasemanagement, it isscheduledforhearingbyapanelof theSupremeCourt.Iusuallyprepareamemoranduminadvanceofthehearingforthejudge.Thecontentscanvary,although,nearlyalways,asummaryoftherelevantfactsandtheproceedingsinthelowercourtsisbeincluded.Imay,timepermitting,includesomelegalanalysisor,attheveryleast,flagtheimportantlegalquestionsthatIthinkariseinthecase.Duringthehearingitself,IeithersitincourtandtakenotesorlistenremotelyontheDAR.Ifajudgedoesnothaveanusherassignedtohimorher,thenthejudicialassistantalsousuallydealswiththepracticalmattersofbringingthejudgetothehearingandassistingthemduringtheproceedings.

Judicial Assistant, Giacomo Benetto discussing his work with his assigned Judge, Ms. Justice Marie Baker.

Judicial Assistant, Giacomo Bonetto, discussing his work with his assigned Judge, Ms. Justice Marie Baker.


Intheperiodbetweentheconclusionof thehearingandthehandingdownof the judgment, Imaycompleteanumberoftasks:myassignedjudgemayaskmetolistentotheDARandperhapsprepareasummaryoforalargumentsmadebycounsel;thejudgemaywantmetoresearchaspecificpointoflawraisedatthehearing;whencaselawfromotherjurisdictionsisopenedasauthorities,thejudgemayaskmetoreviewtheacademiccommentaryofthecasesinquestionintheirhomejurisdictionstohelpthemunderstandthecontextinwhichthecasewasdecided.

For the judgment itself, I proofread the drafts written by the judge and ensures consistency offormattingandcontent.Thisrequiresmetocross-referencewiththebookssubmittedbycounsel,listenbacktothehearingontheDAR,andmakeuseofnumerousdatabasestoensurethatthequotationsandcitationsofcaselawcitediscorrect.Whenthejudgmentisfinallyreadyforapproval,thejudgesignsitanditisbothhandeddowninopencourtandpublishedonline.Alongsidesuchduties,Imayassistthejudgeinanylecturestheyaregivingorresearchpaperstheyarewriting.

Reflecting the collegiate nature of the Supreme Court, Judicial Assistants assigned to the Supreme Court meet regularly to collaborate and update colleagues on their work.


6

Part 6A Look to 2020


A look to 2020

Sitting of the Supreme Court in the South East

Fromthe24thtothe26thFebruary2020,TheSupremeCourtwill sit inWaterfordandKilkennycities,wherethe Chief Justice will be accompanied by othermembersoftheSupremeCourt.ItwillbethefirsttimethattheSupremeCourthassatineithercityanditwillalso be the first time that the Court has sat at twodifferentlocations.

While in Waterford and Kilkenny,membersof the SupremeCourtwillengage in outreach with the localpractising legal professions,Waterford Institute of Technologyandwiththewiderpublic.TheCourtwillalsovisit second levelschools inWaterford and Kilkenny and run a‘Comhrálive’programme,whichwillbe a live adaptation of the Comhrápilot video call programme whichcommencedin2019.

Speaking ahead of the historic sitting in the South East, the Chief JusticeMr. Justice Frank Clarkecommentedthat:

“This year the Supreme Court will continue with what has become an important annualoccasioninvolvingasittingoutsideofDublin. Buildingonthesuccessofprevioussittings inCork, Limerick and Galway, we will visit the South East and sit in the newly redevelopedcourthouses inWaterfordandKilkenny. Wewill alsobuildon theComhrápilot schemebyexpandingourcommunityoutreachtoincludefivevisitsbymembersoftheCourttosecondaryschoolsinWaterfordandKilkennywheretheComhrámodelwillbeappliedinalivesetting.Developmentssuchas these forman importantpartof thedesireof theSupremeCourt tosignificantlyexpandpublicunderstandingofitswork.WewillhopetofurtherdeveloptheseinitiativesinthefuturewithavisittotheNorthWest,involvingsittingsinbothCastlebarandLetterkenny,beingalreadypencilledinfor2021.”

Waterford Courthouse

Kilkenny Courthouse


Comhrá In2020, theSupremeCourtwill continue to itsComhrá initiativeby engagingwithvariousschoolsacrossthecountrybywayofvideoconferencingtechnology.Itishopedthatwhenthepilotprogrammeconcludes, all second level schoolswill have theopportunity to apply to participate in theComhráprogramme.

Summer Internship Programme for Law Students 2020 In June 2020, the Chief Justice’s Summer Internship Programme for Law Studentswill commence.ParticipantsontheProgrammewillbeassignedtoaJudgeoftheSuperiorCourtsandoverthecourseof a month will observe court proceeding, undertake legal research assignments and attend theHardimanLectureSeries.

Bilateral engagement with the Supreme Court of Canada InJune2020,adelegationofJudgesfromtheSupremeCourtofCanada,ledbyChiefJusticeTheRt.Hon.RichardWagner,willvisitDublinforabilateralmeetinghostedbytheSupremeCourtofIreland.ThepurposeofthisbilateralistoprovidebothCourtswithanopportunitytodiscusstopicsofmutualinterestandtoexchangeknowledgeonawiderangeoflegalissues.ThevisitreflectstheimportanceofthetiesbetweentheJudiciaryofIrelandwiththoseinothercommonlawlegaljurisdictions.

Biennial meeting with United Kingdom Judiciaries. InDecember2020,adelegationofjudgesfromtheSuperiorCourtsofIreland,ledbytheChiefJusticeMr. Justice Frank Clarke,willmeetwith a delegation of colleagues of the Judiciaries of theUnitedKingdominDublin,todiscussmattersofmutualinterest.ThejudiciariesofEnglandandWales,ScotlandandtheUnitedKingdomSupremeCourtwillberepresentedatthisbiennialmeeting.

Commentingonthesevariousengagements,theChiefJustice,Mr.JusticeFrankClarke,said:

“Ialsoverymuchwelcomethecontinuationanddevelopmentofourimportantinternationalcontactsduring2021.Inadditiontoourregularbilateralandmultilateralengagements,bothwithneighbouringjurisdictionsandattheEuropeanlevel,Iamverymuchlookingforwardtotheplannedvisitof theCanadianSupremeCourtduringthesummermonthsandhavealsocommenced discussions to enhance our relations with the senior French judiciary. In thecontext of Brexit, reinforcing our relations with colleagues from the major Europeanjurisdictionshasbecomeanimportantfocusofourinternationalwork.”

Supreme Court of Ireland

The Four Courts, Inns Quay, Dublin 7, Ireland

+353 (0)1 888 6568 | [email protected]

www.supremecourt.ie

Documents

Supreme Court of Ireland Annual ReportWeb... · 2020-02-26 · The Hardiman Lecture Series ... and is the final arbiter and interpreter of Bunreacht na hÉireann, the Constitution