D.G. v Minister for Justice and Equality Ireland and the Attorney General

 
FREE EXCERPT

[2018] IESCDET 31

THE SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

Clarke C.J.

MacMenamin J.

Dunne J.

BETWEEN
D. G.
APPLICANT
AND
THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY, IRELAND

AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
RESPONDENTS

Leave to appeal – Constitutional threshold – Extension of time – Applicant seeking leave to appeal – Whether the point which arose met the constitutional threshold

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO WHICH ARTICLE 34.5.4° OF THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES
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: 27th October 2017
DATE OF ORDER: 27th October 2017
DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 27th October 2017
THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 23rd JANUARY 2018 AND WAS NOT 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 33rd 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 Price Waterhouse Coopers (A Firm) v Quinn Insurance Ltd. (Under Administration) [2017] IESC 73. 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 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.

3

In that context it should be noted that the respondent does not oppose the grant of leave.

Decision
4

In this case the respondents (‘the State’) do not oppose the...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL