Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Dumbrell, [2015] IECCA 1 (2015)

Docket Number:58/11
Party Name:Director of Public Prosecutions, Dumbrell
 
FREE EXCERPT

THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

Appeal No. 58/2011

Denham C.J.

Edwards J.

O’Malley J.

Application for Certification under Section 29 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, as amended, for the purposes of an Appeal to the Supreme Court

Between/

The People (at the suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions)

Respondentand

Warren DumbrellApplicant

Judgment of the Court delivered on the 30th day of January, 2015, by Denham C.J.

  1. Warren Dumbrell, the applicant, and referred to as “the applicant”, applied to the Court for an order pursuant to s. 29 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, as amended, certifying that the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal in this matter, delivered on the 4th July, 2014, dismissing the applicant’s appeal against conviction, involves a point of law of exceptional public importance and that it is desirable in the public interest that an appeal should be taken to the Supreme Court.

  2. The points of exceptional public importance sought to be certified were as follows:-

    (i) Whether in the course of a trial and if an accused person is seeking to introduce previous convictions of a person whose previous convictions are relevant to an issue in the case, do you drop your shield as a result of s. 33 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 2010?

    (ii) If so, does s. 33 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 2010, apply to all criminal offences before a court during the course of a trial whereby an accused person seeks to introduce the previous convictions of a person whose previous convictions are relevant to issues in the case and do you lose your shield in all circumstances.

    (iii) If so, whether s. 33 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 2010, goes against the principles outlined in The People (The Director of Public Prosecutions) v. Mc Grail [1990] 2 IR 38 at page 50, where reference is made that your shield is not dropped if the matters complained of relate directly to the evidence given at hearing.

  3. The Court heard counsel move the motion on the 22nd October, 2014. Mr. O’Higgins S.C. appeared on behalf of the applicant and Mr. Burns S.C. appeared on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

  4. Section 29 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, as substituted by s. 22 of the Criminal Justice Act, 2006, which was later amended by s. 59 of the Criminal Justice Act, 2007 and s. 31 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 2010, and is referred to as s. 29 of the Act of 1924, provides:-

    (1) Subject to subsection (9A) of this section, no appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from a determination...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL