Braney v Special Criminal Court
Jurisdiction | Ireland |
Court | Supreme Court |
Judge | O'Donnell J.,Charleton J.,O'Malley J. |
Judgment Date | 30 July 2020 |
Neutral Citation | [2020] IESCDET 95 |
Date | 30 July 2020 |
Docket Number | S:AP:IE:2020:000064 |
AND
[2020] IESCDET 95
O'Donnell J.
Charleton J.
O'Malley J.
S:AP:IE:2020:000064
2018 No. 872 JR
SUPREME COURT
DETERMINATION
RESULT: The Court grants leave to the Applicant to appeal to this Court directly from the High Court.
REASONS GIVEN:
ORDER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED
COURT: High Court |
DATE OF JUDGMENT OR RULING: 23 rd April, 2020 |
DATE OF ORDER: 12 th May, 2020 |
DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 15 th May, 2020 |
THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 3 rd June, 2020 AND WAS IN TIME. |
The general principles applied by this court in determining whether to grant or refuse leave to appeal, having regard to the criteria incorporated into the Constitution as a result of the Thirty-third Amendment, have now been considered in a large number of determinations and are fully addressed in both a determination issued by a panel consisting of all of the members of this court in B.S. v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESCDET 134, (Unreported, Supreme Court, 6 December 2017) and in a unanimous judgment of a full court delivered by O'Donnell 1 in Quinn Insurance Ltd. v. PricewaterhouseCoopers [2017] IESC 73, [2017] 3 I.R. 812. The additional criteria required to be met in order that the so-called leapfrog appeal directly from the High Court to this court can be permitted were addressed by the court in Wansboro v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESCDET 115, (Unreported, Supreme Court, 20 November 2017). Accordingly, it is unnecessary to revisit the new constitutional architecture for the purpose of this determination.
Furthermore, the application for leave filed and the respondent's notice are published along with this determination (subject only to any redaction required by law) and it is therefore unnecessary to set out the position of the parties in any detail. No aspect of this ruling has precedential value as a matter of law.
This is an application for leave to appeal to this court pursuant to Article 34.5.4° of the Constitution (a leapfrog appeal) from the High Court decision of the 23 rd of April, 2020, dismissing the applicant's challenge to the constitutional validity of s. 30(3) of the Offences Against the State Act 1939 and the applicant's contention that this section was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (“E.C.H.R.”). The State respondents have indicated that they are not opposing the grant of leave and that it is a matter for the court. The notice party has indicated that she would wish to participate in the appeal if leave is granted.
The applicant challenges the validity of s. 30(3) of the Offences Against the State Act 1939, permitting the extension of a detention of a person arrested under s. 30 on the authorisation of “an officer of the Garda Síochána not below the rank of Chief Superintendent”, which, it is alleged, is insufficient by analogy with the decision of this court in Damache v. D.P.P. & Ors. [2012] IESC 11, [2012] 2 I.R. 266, and further contends that the fact that a person arrested under s. 30 is treated...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kevin Braney v Ireland and the Attorney General
...leave to appeal from the ruling of the High Court ([2020] IEHC 222), dismissing claims of unconstitutionality and incompatibility: [2020] IESCDET 95. Mr Braney asserted that, because the provisions regarding extension of detention under s. 30 of the 1939 Act differ from those applying to ot......
-
Braney v Special Criminal Court
...leave to appeal from the ruling of the High Court ([2020] IEHC 222), dismissing claims of unconstitutionality and incompatibility: [2020] IESCDET 95. Mr Braney asserted that, because the provisions regarding extension of detention under s. 30 of the 1939 Act differ from those applying to ot......