Connors v Faughnan

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: O'Donnell J.,McKechnie J.,O'Malley J.
• Judgment Date: 24 November 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] IESCDET 116
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 24 November 2017

[2017] IESCDET 116

THE SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

O'Donnell J.

McKechnie J.

O'Malley J.

BETWEEN

CHRISTOPHER CONNORS

APPLICANT

AND

DISTRICT JUDGE JAMES FAUGHNAN

FIRST RESPONDENT

AND

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

SECOND RESPONDENT

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

Result: The Court does not grant leave to appeal.

Reasons Given:

Jurisdiction

1 This is an application for leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the Court of Appeal, by which that Court upheld the refusal of the High Court (O'Regan J.) to grant an order of certiorari quashing the applicant's conviction for the offence of handling stolen property.

2 As is clear from the terms of the Constitution and many determinations made by this Court since the enactment of the 33rd Amendment it is necessary, in order for this Court to grant leave, that it be established that the decision sought to be appealed either involves a matter of general public importance or that it is otherwise in the interest of justice necessary that there be an appeal to this Court.

3 The Court considers it desirable to point out that a determination of the Court on an application for leave, while it is final and conclusive so far as the parties are concerned, is a decision in relation to that application only. The issue is whether the questions raised, and the facts underpinning them, meet the constitutional criteria for leave. It will not, save in the rarest of circumstances, be appropriate to rely on a refusal of leave as having a precedential value in relation to the substantive issues in the context of a different case. Where leave is granted, any issue canvassed in the application will in due course be disposed of in the substantive decision of the Court.

Background

4 The applicant was tried before the first named respondent on the 23rd September 2014 on a charge of handing a stolen bag, knowing or believing it to be stolen, contrary to s. 17 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001. His partner, with whom he resided in the apartment where the bag was found, had pleaded guilty to the same charge on an earlier occasion. In the course of his evidence the Garda investigating the offence said that he suspected that the applicant had stolen the bag.

5 The applicant applied for a direction at the close of the prosecution case, making two separate submissions for that purpose. Firstly, it was contended that on the basis of the officer's evidence the applicant had been involved in the theft and could not, therefore, be convicted of handling. The complaint made on behalf of the applicant in this respect is that the judge did not engage with this submission and rejected it without giving reasons. The second submission was that, since the applicant's partner had pleaded guilty, it was necessary for the prosecution in the applicant's case to give evidence of common design or joint enterprise. Again, it is complained that the judge did not engage with the argument made and simply stated that the applicant had a case to...