DPP v G

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Supreme Court
• Judge: Clarke C.J.,O' Malley J.,Finlay Geoghegan J.
• Judgment Date: 06 November 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] IESCDET 190
• Date: 06 November 2018

THE PEOPLE AT THE SUIT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

APPLICANT

AND

J. G.

RESPONDENT

[2018] IESCDET 190

Clarke C.J.

O' Malley J.

Finlay Geoghegan J.

THE SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

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

RESULT: The Court does not grant leave to the Applicant to appeal to this Court from the Court of Appeal.

REASONS GIVEN:

ORDER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED

COURT: Court of Appeal

DATE OF ORDER: 8th June, 2018

DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 31st July, 2018

THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 16th August, 2018 AND WAS IN TIME.

REASONS GIVEN:

General Considerations

1 The general principles applied by this Court in determining whether to grant or refuse leave to appeal having regard to the criteria incorporated into the Constitution as a result of the 33rd Amendment have now been considered in a large number of determinations and are fully addressed in both a determination issued by a panel consisting of all of the members of this Court in B.S. v Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESCDET 134 and in a unanimous judgment of a full Court delivered by O'Donnell J. in Price Waterhouse Coopers (A Firm) v Quinn Insurance Ltd. (Under Administration) [2017] IESC 73. The additional criteria required to be met in order that a so-called "leapfrog appeal" direct from the High Court to this Court can be permitted were addressed by a full panel of the Court in Wansboro v Director of Public Prosecutions (2017) IESCDET 115. Accordingly it is unnecessary to revisit the new constitutional architecture for the purpose of this determination.

2 The application for leave filed, and the respondent's notice thereto, are published along with this determination (subject only to any redaction required by law) and it is therefore unnecessary to set out the position of the parties in detail.

Discussion

3 In this application the Director of Public Prosecutions seeks leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal to quash the conviction of the respondent on a number of charges of sexual assault and to refuse to order a re-trial.

4 The alleged offences were said to have been committed between 1990 and 1994, when the complainant was a young boy aged between four and eight years old. The respondent was in his early fifties at the time. The complaint was made to the gardaí in 2010.

5 The first trial (in 2013) ended in a disagreement. The respondent was convicted in the second trial, in 2015, and was sentenced to a term of thirteen years with the final five suspended.

6 The substantive issue which the Director wished to address is the finding of the Court of Appeal that the trial judge erred in admitting evidence as to two previous convictions of the respondent in respect of offences against the complainant's sisters. These had been reported to the gardaí in 1995. The respondent had pleaded guilty to the resulting charges and had served sentences in respect thereof in the late 1990s. The sisters" statements of evidence and the fact of the pleas were admitted in the trial now under consideration, as...