DPP v McGrath

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: O'Donnell J.,Charleton J.,Woulfe J.
• Judgment Date: 09 February 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] IESCDET 17
• Date: 09 February 2021
• Court: Supreme Court
• Docket Number: Supreme Court record no: S:AP:IE:2020:000111 High Court record no: 2009 No. 1327 JR

BETWEEN

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

APPLICANT

AND

DISTRICT JUDGE ELIZABETH MCGRATH

RESPONDENT

AND

JOHN MATTHEWS

AND

GERARD GEARTY

NOTICE PARTIES

[2021] IESCDET 17

O'Donnell J.

Charleton J.

Woulfe J.

Supreme Court record no: S:AP:IE:2020:000111

Court of Appeal record no: A:AP:IE:2014:000349 and A:AP:IE:2014:000359

High Court record no: 2009 No. 1327 JR

An Chúirt Uachtarach

The Supreme Court

DETERMINATION

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

RESULT: The Court grants 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 JUDGMENT OR RULING: 20 th December, 2019

DATE OF ORDER: 20 th December, 2019

DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 16 th October, 2020

THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 16 th October, 2020 AND WAS IN TIME.

General consideration

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 Thirty-third 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, (Unreported, Supreme Court, 6 December 2017) and in a unanimous judgment of a full court in Quinn Insurance Ltd. v. PricewaterhouseCoopers [2017] IESC 73, [2017] 3 I.R. 812. The additional criteria required to be met in order that the so-called leapfrog appeal directly from the High Court to this court can be permitted were addressed by the court in Wansboro v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESCDET 115, (Unreported, Supreme Court, 20 November 2017). Accordingly, it is unnecessary to revisit the new constitutional architecture for the purpose of this determination.

2 Furthermore, the application for leave filed and the respondent's notice 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 any detail. No aspect of this ruling has precedential value as a matter of law.

Decision

3 This determination concerns a decision of the Court of Appeal as above which dismissed an appeal by the applicant, The DPP. The respondent in this case is District Court Judge McGrath, the Judge, and the Notice Party who is part of this application is Mr Matthews. The DPP sought a judicial review of an order of costs handed down by the District Court. The issue which the applicant seeks to raise is whether the District Court has jurisdiction to make such a costs order against the DPP or a member of An Garda Síochána in criminal proceeding. The context of the issue is that the cost order was handed down by the Judge as a result of prosecutions brought against the two Notice Parties that were then abandoned by the DPP. In the application, the DPP states these reasons as to why a further appeal should be allowed in the interests of justice (quoted without correction):

1. It is in the interests of justice that there is clarity on the jurisdiction of the District Court to make costs orders as against the Applicant or a member of An Garda Siochana.

2. It is in the interests of justice that certain categories of prosecutor (i.e. those stated in Order 36 Rule 1 of the Distd ct Court Rules) do have immunity from costs orders in the District Court.

3. The longstanding exemption from costs orders enjoyed by the Applicant and members of An Garda Siochana has been upheld by the Supreme Court in Dillane v Ireland [1980] ILRM 167, on the basis of, inter a/ ia, “… the desirability that...