DPP v Gruchacz

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: MacMenamin J.,O'Donnell J.
• Judgment Date: 30 July 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] IESCDET 118
• Docket Number: 2016 No 186
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 30 July 2018

THE PEOPLE AT THE SUIT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

AND

ANDRZEJ GRUCHACZ

APPLICANT

[2018] IESCDET 118

2016 No 186

THE SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

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

RESULT: The Court will make an order allowing an appeal to this Court under Article 34.5.3 of the Constitution from the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on the 30th January, 2018.

COURT: Court of Appeal

DATE OF JUDGMENT OR RULING: 30th January, 2018

DATE OF ORDER: 30th January, 2018

DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 21st February, 2018

THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 20th March, 2018 AND WAS IN TIME.

REASONS GIVEN:

1 The general principles applied by this Court in determining whether to grant or refuse leave to appeal, having regard to the criteria incorporated in the Constitution as a result of the 33rd Amendment, have now been considered in a large number of determinations, and are fully established in both a determination issued by a panel, consisting of all the members of this Court in BS v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESC DET 134, and in a unanimous judgment of a full court delivered by O'Donnell J. in Price Waterhouse Cooper (A Firm) v. Quinn Insurance Limited (Under Administration) [2017] IESC 73. Insofar as applicable, 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] IESC DET 115. It follows that it is unnecessary to revisit the new constitutional architecture for the purposes of this determination. Furthermore, the application for leave filed, and the respondent's notice, (as redacted), are published, along with this determination, subject to such redaction required by law, and it is, therefore, unnecessary to set out the position of the parties.

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.

Background

4 On the 22nd April, 2016,...