Dowdall v DPP ; Hutch v DPP

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Supreme Court
• Judge: O'Donnell C.J.,Charleton J.,O'Malley J.,Hogan J.,Murray J.
• Judgment Date: 11 November 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] IESC 46
• Docket Number: S:AP:IE:2022:000031

Between/

Jonathan Dowdall

Appellant/Applicant

and

The Director of Public Prosecutions, The Minister for Justice, Dáil Eireann, Seanad Eireann, Ireland and the Attorney General

Respondents

Gerard Hutch

Appellant/Applicant

and

The Director of Public Prosecutions, The Minister for Justice, Dáil Eireann, Seanad Eireann, Ireland and the Attorney General

Respondents

[2022] IESC 46

O'Donnell C.J.

Charleton J.,

O'Malley J.,

Hogan J.,

Murray J.

S:AP:IE:2022:000031

S:AP:IE:2022:000032

AN CHÚIRT UACHTARACH

The Supreme Court

Trial – Murder – Costs – Respondents seeking costs – Whether costs should follow the event

Facts: The appellants, Mr Dowdall and Mr Hutch, were brought before Special Criminal Court No. 1 charged with the murder of Mr Byrne at the Regency Hotel, Swords Road, Whitehall, Dublin 9 on 5 February, 2016. The appellants sought to challenge their return for trial before the Special Criminal Court by way of application to the High Court. That challenge was rejected on 11 February, 2022 ([2022] IEHC 81). The appellants applied for and were granted leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court on 11 May, 2022 ([2022] IESCDET 61). Further to the order of the Court made on the 29th of July, 2022 dismissing both appellants’ appeals ([2022] IESC 36), the successful respondents, namely the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General (the State respondents) and Dáil Eireann and Seanad Eireann (the Oireachtas respondents) sought an order for the costs of the appeal. Both the State respondents and the Oireachtas respondents informed the Court that they did not seek costs against Mr Dowdall on the basis that he had the benefit of legal aid. Both sets of respondents sought their costs against Mr Hutch. Both respondents acknowledged that any costs recovered should not extend to the costs connected to the application by IHREC to participate in the appeal. Submissions were exchanged between the parties who agreed that the matter could be dealt with by a ruling of the Court. It was argued on behalf of Mr Hutch that no order for costs should be made against him because the point had first been made by a co-accused, Mr Dowdall, and Mr Hutch had merely adopted the arguments made; the cases were in every respect identical.

Held by the Court that the jurisdiction to award costs is regulated by s. 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, the effect of which is...