Donnelly v Ireland
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Chief Justice |
| Judgment Date | 22 January 1998 |
| Neutral Citation | 1998 WJSC-SC 1346 |
| Date | 22 January 1998 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Docket Number | [1995 |
BETWEEN:
and
1998 WJSC-SC 1346
HAMILTON C.J.
O'FLAHERTY J.
DENHAM J.
BARRINGTON J.
MURPHY J.
THE SUPREME COURT
Synopsis
Constitutional
Legislation; challenge; validity; right to trial in due course of law; evidence; whether giving of evidence via live television link in sexual offence cases constitutional; whether giving of such evidence infringes right of confrontation and cross-examination; whether breach of constitutional and natural justice and fair procedures; whether legislation discriminatory; ss. 12, 13 (1) & (2) and 18 Criminal Evidence Act, 1992; Art. 38.1 & 34.4.4 of the Constitution
Held: Legislation not repugnant to Constitution ( Supreme Court: Hamilton C.J.,* O'Flaherty J., Denham J., Barrington J., Murphy J.22/01/1998(*Decision of the Court delivered by Hamilton C.J.))
Donnelly v. Ireland
[ 1998 1 IR 338 - [1998] 1 ILRM 401
Citations:
CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1992 S12
CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1992 S13(1)
CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1992 S13(2)
CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1992 S18
CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1992 PART III
CONSTITUTION ART 38.1
CONSTITUTION ART 38.5
CONSTITUTION ART 40.3
CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1992 S13(3)
CONSTITUTION ART 6
CONSTITUTION ART 34
CONSTITUTION ART 40.1
CONSTITUTION ART 40.3.1
CRIMINAL LAW (RAPE) (AMDT) ACT 1990 S2
WHITE V IRELAND 1995 2 IR 268
HAUGHEY, IN RE 1971 IR 217
D V DPP 1994 1 ILRM 435
HEALY, STATE V DONOGHUE 1976 IR 325
COY V IOWA 487 US 1012
MARYLAND V CRAIG 497 US 836
KENTUCKY V STINCER 482 US 748
KIRBY V UNITED STATES 174 US 47
DOWDELL V UNITED STATES 221 US 325
CALIFORNIA V GREEN 399 US 149
PENNSYLVANIA V RITCHIE 480 US 39
CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1992 S13
Judgment of the Supreme Court delivered on the 22nd day of January, 1998 by the Chief Justice pursuant to the provisions of Article 34.4.5 of the Constitution of Ireland
This is an appeal brought by the above-named Anthony Donnelly (hereinafter called the Appellant), against the judgment of the then President of the High Court (Costello P.) delivered on the 9th day of December 1996 and the order made in pursuance thereof on that date whereby the Appellant's claims for:-
(1) A declaration that Sections 12, 13(1) and (2) and 18 of Part III of the Criminal Evidence Act, 1992are invalid insofar and to the extent that they are repugnant to the provisions of Bunreacht na hÉireann and in particular Articles 38(1), 38(5) and 40(3) thereof.
(2) A declaration that Section 13(3) of the Criminal Evidence Act is invalid insofar as the said provision is repugnant to the provisions of Bunreacht na hÉireann and in particular Articles 6,34,38.1 and 40.3 thereof.
(3) An order of certiorari in respect of the Appellant's conviction by the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court on the 18th day of March, 1994,
were dismissed.
The Criminal Evidence Act, 1992(No. 10 of 1992) will hereinafter be referred to as the Act.
The provisions of the Act sought to be impugned provide as follows:-
This part applies to -
(a) a sexual offence,
(b) an offence involving violence or the threat of violence to a person, or
(c) an offence consisting of attempting or conspiring to commit, or of aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring or inciting the commission of, an offence mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b).
(1) In any proceedings for an offence to which this Part applies a person other than the accused may give evidence, whether from within or outside the State, through a live television link -
(a) if the person is under 17 years of age, unless the court sees good reason to the contrary,
(b) in any other case, with the leave of the court.
(2) Evidence given under subsection (1) shall be video recorded.
(3) While evidence is being given through a live television link pursuant to subsection (1) (except through an intermediary pursuant to section 14(1)), neither the judge, nor the barrister or solicitor concerned in the examination of the witness, shall wear a wig or gown.
(1) Where -
(a) a person is accused of an offence to which this Part applies, and
(b) a person under 17 years of age is giving, or is to give, evidence through a live television link,
the court may, on the application of the prosecution or the accused, if satisfied that, having regard to the age or mental condition of the witness, the interests of justice require that any questions to be put to the witness be put through an intermediary, direct that any such questions be so put.
(2) Questions put to a witness through an intermediary under this section shall be either in the words used by the questioner or so as to convey to the witness in a way which is appropriate to his age and mental condition the meaning of the questions being asked.
(3) An intermediary referred to in subsection (1) shall be appointed by the court and shall be a person who, in its opinion, is competent to act as such.
Where -
(a) a person is accused of an offence to which this Part applies, and
(b) evidence is given by a person (in this section referred to as "the witness" through a live television link pursuant to section 13(1),
then -
(i) in case evidence is given that the accused was known to the witness before the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed, the witness shall not be required to identify the accused at the trial of the offence, unless the court in the interests of justice directs otherwise, and
(ii) in any other case, evidence by a person other than the witness that the witness identified the accused at an identification parade as being the offender shall be admissible as evidence that the accused was so identified.
The effect of the foregoing provisions of the Act is that in proceedings for an offence to which they relate, viz. sexual offences, offences involving violence or the threat of violence to a person or offences consisting of attempting or conspiring to commit or of aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring or inciting the commission of such offences, the persons therein designated, may give evidence, whether from within or outside the State, through a live television link.
The persons therein designated are:-
1. a person under 17 years of age, unless the Court sees good reason to the contrary, and
2. any other person with the leave of the Court.
An accused person may not give evidence in this manner.
Persons permitted to give evidence through a live television link are not physically present in the Court where a judge is presiding, the jury assembled and the accused is present and are not required to give evidence in the presence of the accused person.
The Appellant challenged the constitutionality of the provisions of the Act which permitted the giving of evidence in this manner on the grounds that
(a) the giving of evidence in this manner constituted an infringement of his right through Counsel to cross-examine and/or confront the Complainant and his accusers in the presence of the jury;
(b) such provisions discriminated unjustly and invidiously against the Appellant in the conduct of his defence in that the prosecution was empowered to adduce evidence in the manner provided by reason only of the nature of the offence with which he was charged and the age of the witnesses to be called.
In the Statement of Claim delivered on his behalf he claimed -
(a) A Declaration that Sections 12, 13 and 18 of Part III of the Criminal Evidence Act, 1992, and each of them constitute an infringement of the Plaintiff's right to cross examine and/or confront the Complainant and his Accusers in respect of the Count in the Indictment laid against him in the presence of the jury; and constitute a breach of the Plaintiff's constitutional rights to trial in the course of law and/or natural justice and/or constitutional justice and fairness of procedures as guaranteed by Article 38.1, 38.5 and 40.3 of Bunreacht na hÉireann.
(b) A Declaration that Sections 12, 13(1) and (2) and 18 of Part III of the Criminal Evidence Act, 1992, and each of them, constitute an infringement of the Plaintiff's right as a human person to be held equal before the law guaranteed by Article 40(1) of Bunreacht na hÉireann and is an invidious discrimination and/or a breach of the Plaintiff's constitutional right to trial in due course of law and/or natural justice and fairness of procedures as guaranteed by Articles 38.1, 38.5, and 40.3 of Bunreacht na hÉireann.
(c) A Declaration that Sections 12, 13(1) and (2) and 18 of Part III of the Criminal Evidence Act, 1992, and each of them, constitute an infringement of the Plaintiff's right as a human person to be held equal before the law guaranteed by Article 40(1) of Bunreacht na hÉireann and is an invidious discrimination and/or a breach of the Plaintiff's constitutional right to trial in due course of law and/or natural justice and/or constitutional justice and fairness of procedures as guaranteed by Articles 38.1 and 40.3 thereof insofar as the said provision:
discriminate unjustly and unfairly against the plaintiff/accused in the conduct and prosecution of his defence by reason only of the nature of the offence with which the plaintiff/accused was charged and the age of the witness to be called on behalf of the third named Defendant.
The provisions of the Constitution upon which the Appellant relies are:-
Article 38.1 which provides that:-
"No person shall be tried on any criminal charge save in due course of law."
Article 38.5 which provides that:-
"Save in the trial of offences under section 2,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Melton Enterprises Ltd v Censorship of Publications Board
...PUBLICATIONS REGS 1980 SI 292/1980 ART 5 CENSORSHIP OF PUBLICATIONS ACT 1946 S20 HEALY, STATE V DONOHUE 1976 IR 325 DONNELLY V IRELAND 1998 1 IR 321 CENSORSHIP OF PUBLICATIONS ACT 1929 CENSORSHIP OF PUBLICATIONS REGS 1980 SI 292/1980 ART 5(B) IRISH FAMILY PLANNING V RYAN 1978 IR 313 CENSO......
-
O'Mahony v Promontoria (GEM) DAC
...in this jurisdiction, constitutionally guaranteed in both civil and criminal cases.” 128 McGrath notes that in Donnelly v Ireland [1998] 1 IR 321 at p. 350 Hamilton C.J. described the right to cross-examine as an “essential ingredient in the concept of fair procedures”. In the Criminal Law......
-
Carmody v The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Others
...THE STATE (HEALY) v DONOGHUE 1976 IR 325 THE STATE (FREEMAN) v CONNELLAN 1986 IR 433 HEANEY v IRELAND 1994 3 IR 593 DONNELLY v IRELAND 1998 IR 321 DPP v MCDONAGH 2001 3 IR 411 A v UK 2003 36 EHRR 51 BENHAM v UK 1996 22 EHRR 293 CROISSANT v GERMANY 1993 16 EHRR 135 DE HAES & GIJSELS v BEL......
-
Re Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Bill 1999
...AER 769 ROADS ACT 1993 FISHERIES (AMDT) ACT 1997 IMMIGRATION ACT 1999 S9 MEADS CASE UNREP SUPREME 26.07.72 LOUTH V MIN FOR SOCIAL WELFARE 1998 IR 321 BRENNAN V AG 1983 ILRM 419 GUTRANI V GOVERNOR OF WHEATFIELD UNREP FLOOD 19.2.1993 IMMIGRATION ACT 1999 S3(9) AG V O'CALLAGHAN 1966 IR 501 CL......
-
Towards A Presumption Of Victimhood: Possibilities For Re-Balancing The Criminal Process
...Charleton and others, Charleton & McDermott’s Criminal Law and Evidence (2nd edn, Bloomsbury Professional 2020). 82 Donnelly v Ireland [1998] 1 IR 321, 336. See also The People (DPP) v Sheehan . 83 The Directive provides at Article 10.2: ‘The procedural rules under which victims may be hear......
-
Irish Criminal Trials and European Legal Culture: A Backdrop to Brexit
...s 36.49. Criminal Justice (Victims of Crime) Act 2017, s 21.50. See, eg, White v Ireland [1995] 2 IR 268 (HC) and Donnelly v Ireland [1998] 1 IR 321 (SC).51. European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003. See Fennelly (n 6) paras 2.71–2.72; S Egan and others, Ireland and European Convention ......
-
Indexes
...248Dillane vIreland [1980] ILRM167 . . . . . . . . . . . 94Domican vR (1992) 173CLR 555. . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Donnelly vIreland [1998] 1IR 321 . . . . . . . . . . . 97Donohoe v Ireland (Application No. 19165/08)12December 2013. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340–352DPP vBoardman [19......
-
The Prosecution of Organised Crime: Removing the Jury
...Evidence Act 1992, s. 13 (Ireland); Kostovski v Netherlands (1989) 12 EHRR 434; White v Ireland [1995] 2 IR 268; Donnelly v Ireland [1998] 1 IR 321. THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE & PROOF 97 THE PROSECUTION OF ORGANISED CRIME Crucially, neither of these suggestions overcomes the very......