DPP v McGrath
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | O'Donnell J.,Dunne J.,Charleton J. |
| Judgment Date | 15 September 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] IESCDET 99 |
| Date | 15 September 2020 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Docket Number | Supreme Court record no: S:AP:IE:2020:000074 High Court record no: 2018 No. 1430 SS |
DETERMINATION
IN THE MATTER OF A CASE STATED PURSUANT TO SECTION 52 OF THE COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACT 1961
[2020] IESCDET 99
O'Donnell J.
Dunne J.
Charleton J.
Supreme Court record no: S:AP:IE:2020:000074
Court of Appeal record no: A:AP:IE:2019:000270
High Court record no: 2018 No. 1430 SS
AN CHÚIRT UACHTARACH
THE SUPREME COURT
RESULT: The Court does not grant leave to the Defendant / Applicant to appeal to this Court from the Court of Appeal
REASONS GIVEN:
ORDER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED
| COURT: Court of Appeal |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT OR RULING: 16th April, 2020 |
| DATE OF ORDER: 16th April, 2020 |
| DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 16th June, 2020 |
| THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 15th July, 2020 AND WAS NOT IN TIME. |
REASONS GIVEN:
What is sought here is a second appeal on a drunken driving allegation where a case has been stated on a point of law by the District Court. In such prosecutions, proof of certain facts is done by certificate. But on occasion, original certificates get lost but a photocopy is on the file and is produced in court. This determination concerns a decision of the Court of Appeal of 16 April 2020, Birmingham P, McCarthy and Kennedy JJ. That dismissed an appeal from the High Court, Simons J, on a case stated from the District Court which asked this question:
Where the original s 13 statement under the Road Traffic Act 2010 is not available, but a photocopy of that statement has been tendered in evidence by the prosecution, does the evidential presumption of validity under s 20(1) of the Road Traffic Act 2010 apply to that photocopied statement.
Essentially, while complex arguments were advanced in the High Court and in the Court of Appeal. These reference s 30 of the Criminal Evidence Act 1992 which provides for the admission of copies of documents in particular circumstances. It is contended that this provision does not apply because of the novel statutory context. There does not seem to be any sign of any amendment being effected expressly or by clear implication by the 2010 Act in question.
It is to be noted as well that this is the second application. The first was directly from the High Court; determination of 11 October 2019, S:AP:IE:2019:000117. The Court then refused that application:
This is a matter of straightforward statutory interpretation. While what is involved is a statute penalising those who offend against laws designed to protect the travelling public, that does not necessarily mean that every point that might be argued is of general public importance. This has been put forward as a complex matter. The trial judge in the High Court considered involved argument, but the proof of a photocopy of a document through a live witness does not meet the constitutional threshold.
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 BS v Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESCDET 134 and in a unanimous judgment of a full Court in Price Waterhouse Coopers (A Firm) v Quinn Insurance Ltd. (Under Administration) [2017] IESC 73. Accordingly, it is unnecessary to revisit the new constitutional architecture for the purpose of this determination.
The application for leave filed, and the respondent's notice thereto, are both 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 further detail.
The court is not one for the correction of error. No aspect of this ruling has precedential value as a matter of law.
On the issue, the submissions on behalf of the applicant seek to find a basis whereby law passed by the Oireachtas should not be applied. For Garda Gurn, the submissions point to the existing statutory framework and contend that no point of law of general public importance could arise. Indeed, simply because a point might affect drunken driving prosecutions, or intoxicated driving by reason of drugs prosecutions, does not mean that a point of public importance arises. First of all, there must be a point of genuine controversy as to the law and some absence of clear authority whereby an appeal becomes necessary. In the light of the decisions of this Court on statutory interpretation and in the light of the wording of the legislative authority expressed in statutory form by the Oireachtas pursuant to their sole and exclusive law-making function under Article 15.1 of the Constitution, it has not been demonstrated here that any such controversy can arise.
On the evidential point, the Court of Appeal felt constrained by the express wording of the relevant statutes and by the applicability of prior authority by analogy:
20. The respondent argues that reliance may be placed...
To continue reading
Request your trial