Carroll v DPP

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Clarke C.J.,MacMenamin J.,Baker J.
• Judgment Date: 14 April 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] IESCDET 52
• Date: 14 April 2020
• Court: Supreme Court
• Docket Number: Supreme Court record no: S:AP:IE:2019:000211 High Court record no: 2018 No. 514 JR

BETWEEN

REGINALD CARROLL

APPLICANT

AND

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

RESPONDENT

[2020] IESCDET 52

Clarke C.J.

MacMenamin J.

Baker J.

Supreme Court record no: S:AP:IE:2019:000211

Court of Appeal record no: A:AP:IE:2019:000008

High Court record no: 2018 No. 514 JR

THE SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO WHICH ARTICLE 34.5.3° OF THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES

RESULT: The Court does not grant leave to the Applicant to appeal to this Court from the Court of Appeal

REASONS GIVEN:

ORDER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED

COURT: Court of Appeal

DATE OF JUDGMENT OR RULING: 21st October, 2019

DATE OF ORDER: 21st October, 2019

DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 5th November, 2019

THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 26TH NOVEMBER, 2019 AND WAS IN TIME.

General Considerations

1 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 and in a unanimous judgment of a full Court delivered by O'Donnell J. in Quinn Insurance Ltd. v PricewaterhouseCoopers [2017] IESC 73, [2017] 3 I.R. 812. The additional criteria required to be met in order that a so-called ‘leapfrog appeal’ direct from the High Court to this Court can be permitted were addressed by a full panel of the Court in Wansboro v Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESCDET 115. It follows that it is unnecessary to revisit the new constitutional architecture for the purposes of this determination.

2 Furthermore, the application for leave filed is 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 applicant.

Discussion

3 As this application for leave to appeal relates to the refusal of the High Court to grant leave to commence judicial review proceedings (a decision upheld by the Court of Appeal in Carroll v Judge Fahy & anor [2019] IECA 258) there is no respondent to this application, for the intended respondent to the judicial review proceedings (“the DPP”) was not a party to the ex parte application in the High Court and was not, therefore, a party to the appeal before the Court of Appeal.

4 As appears from the Notice filed by the applicant (“Mr. Carroll”) and from the...