Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Bolger, [2015] IECCA 4 (2015)

Docket Number:292/09
Party Name:Director of Public Prosecutions, Bolger


Denham C.J.

McGovern J.

Hunt J.


The People (Director of Public Prosecutions)


-and-Liam Bolger

ApplicantJudgment of the Court delivered this 24th day of July 2015, by Mr Justice Tony Hunt


  1. The applicant seeks a certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court pursuant to section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1924 (as amended).

  2. The applicant was convicted of the offence of murder by the majority verdict of a jury at the Central Criminal Court (Carney J.) on 17 November 2009, and was sentenced to life imprisonment from 13 September 2008.

  3. The applicant applied to this Court for leave to appeal against conviction. At the hearing for leave, he made submissions in relation to five issues.

  4. By the judgment of this Court on 14 March 2013, the application for leave to appeal was refused in relation to all five issues raised by the applicant.

  5. By Notice of Motion dated 4 March 2014, the applicant then applied for a certificate pursuant to s.29 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1924 (as amended) for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court to argue two points of law.

  6. The points of law in respect of which certification is sought are stated therein as follows:-

    1. “Is the caution given to a person in custody being questioned pursuant to the inference provisions (ss.18, 19 and s.19A of the Criminal Justice Act, 1984 as amended by ss. 28, 29 and 30 of the Criminal Justice Act, 2007) that inferences may be drawn from his failure to answer questions with respect to the offence for which he has been arrested sufficient to render those interviews admissible at a trial in respect of an offence other than that for which he was arrested?”

    2. “Where a jury are (sic) being charged in relation to an accused’s interviews in which adverse inference provisions arise and where the accused stated in interview that he had maintained silence on the basis of legal advice should the trial judge advise the jury that it is obliged to give appropriate weight to the legal advice and, therefore, to draw the inference only where the jury could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that such silence was maintained because the accused had no explanation to give consistent with his innocence?”

  7. Written submissions were delivered by each party, and the application for the s.29 certificate was heard by the Court on 27 March 2015.

  8. The applicant accepts that he bears the burden of proving that...

To continue reading