DPP v Buck

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Supreme Court
• Judge: Clarke J.,MacMenamin J.,Laffoy J.
• Judgment Date: 20 January 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] IESCDET 6
• Date: 20 January 2017

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 2 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1993

BETWEEN

THE PEOPLE AT THE SUIT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

V.

ANTHONY BUCK

APPLICANT

[2017] IESCDET 6

Clarke J.

MacMenamin J.

Laffoy J.

THE SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO WHICH ARTICLE 34.5.3° OF THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES

RESULT: The Court declines leave to the applicant to appeal to this Court from the Court of Appeal on the issues identified herein.

REASONS GIVEN:

1 The facts in this case are set out in the application for leave, the respondent's notice, and in a comprehensive judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on the 11th day of December, 2015 (Birmingham J.). All of these are publicly available, and have been placed on the Courts website.

2 As is clear from the terms of the Constitution, and the many determinations made by this Court since the enactment of the 33rd Amendment to the Constitution, it is necessary, in order for this Court to grant leave, that it be established that the decision sought to be appealed either involves a matter of general public importance, or that it is otherwise in the interests of justice necessary that there may be an appeal to this Court.

3 The Court considers it desirable to point out that a Determination of the Court on an application for leave, while it is final and conclusive as far as the parties are concerned, is a decision in relation to that application only. The decision is whether the questions raised, and the facts underpinning them, meet the constitutional criteria for leave. Save in the rarest of circumstances, it will not be appropriate to rely upon a refusal of leave as having a precedential value in relation to the substantive issues in the context of different cases. Where leave is granted, any issue canvassed in the application will, in due course, be disposed of in the substantive decision of this Court.

4 The applicant, Anthony Buck, was convicted in the Central Criminal Court following a lengthy trial, presided over by Quirke J. on the 20th February, 1998. He was convicted of the murder of David Nugent between the evening of the 8th and the morning of the 9th July, 1996, at Clonmel, Co. Tipperary. The mandatory life sentence was imposed. The applicant was also convicted on the same occasion of robbery, and sentenced to 12 years imprisonment. The applicant appealed this conviction to the Court of Criminal Appeal. That court dismissed the appeal. However, the Court of Criminal Appeal issued a certificate, pursuant to s.29 of the Court of Justice Act, 1924. This appeal concerned the admissibility of statements made whilst in garda custody. This Court dismissed the appeal in a judgment delivered by Keane C.J., DPP v. Buck [2002] 2 I.R. 268. The applicant remains in jail on foot of this conviction.

5 Following upon the more recent judgment of this Court in the case of DPP v. Gormley & White [2014] IESC 17, (the Gormley judgment), the applicant sought to invoke the provisions of s.2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1993. He contended that there had been a miscarriage of justice, and that his...