DPP -v- Campbell,  IESC 26 (2004)
|Party Name:||DPP, Campbell|
|Judge:||Fennelly J. / Keane C.J.|
JUDGMENT BY: Fennelly J.
THE SUPREME COURT[S.C. No. 93 of 2004]
BETWEENTHE PEOPLE (AT THE SUIT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS) Respondentand
LIAM CAMPBELL Applicant/Appellant
JUDGMENT delivered on the 23rd day of April, 2004 by FENNELLY J. I entirely agree with the Chief Justice that section 29 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924 confers no jurisdiction on this Court to entertain an appeal from a judgment from a determination of the Court of Criminal Appeal which allows an appeal.
This result is unfortunate and undesirable. Mr Michael O'Higgins rightly emphasised the burden that it places on the Applicant. The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal decided the certified point against the Applicant. The Special Criminal Court at the retrial is likely to feel bound by that decision. In the event of a conviction, there will have to be a further appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal. It may then be possible to have the matter,
clearly a matter of exceptional public importance, certified anew to this Court.
These and other limitations of the section could readily be remedied by amending legislation.
JUDGMENT BY: Keane C.J.
THE SUPREME COURT
THE PEOPLE AT THE SUIT OF THE DIRECTOR OF
LIAM CAMPBELLApplicant / Appellant
Judgment delivered the 23rd day of April 2004 by Keane, C.J.
The applicant was prosecuted in the Special Criminal Court on a charge of membership of an unlawful organisation, i.e., an organisation styling itself The Irish Republican Army, otherwise Oglaigh na hÉireann, otherwise the I.R.A. contrary to s. 21 of the Offences Against the State Act, 1939 as amended by s. 2(6) of the Criminal Law Act, 1976. He was convicted of that offence and sentenced to a term of five years imprisonment, the last three months being suspended. Leave to appeal both the conviction and the sentence having been refused by the court of trial, he applied to the Court of Criminal Appeal for leave to appeal both as regards conviction and sentence.
A number of grounds of appeal were relied on before the Court of Criminal Appeal. Some of them related to rulings made by the Special Criminal Court during the course of the trial. In the judgment of the court delivered by
McGuinness, J. on the 19th December, 2003, one of these grounds - that a particular line of cross-examination of the applicant should not have been permitted - was upheld. On that ground, accordingly, the applicant's appeal was allowed and his conviction quashed. The court, however, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under s. 5(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act, 1928 ordered a retrial.
The applicant had also relied before the Court of Criminal Appeal on the following ground of appeal: -
[The Special Criminal Court] erred in holding that the 'Real I.R.A.' was a proscribed organisation within the terms of the Suppression Order published pursuant to s. 19 of the Offences Against the State Act, 1939.
In its judgment...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL