DPP v Meleady (No. 2)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 04 March 1997
• Date: 04 March 1997
• Docket Number: [S.C. Nos. 51 and 52 of 1996]
• Court: Supreme Court

The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v. Meleady (No. 2)

In the matter of s. 29 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, and in the matter of s. 9 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1993: The People (Director of Public Prosecutions)

and

Joseph Meleady and Joseph Grogan (No. 2)

[S.C. Nos. 51 and 52 of 1996]

Supreme Court

Criminal law - Inquiry - Appeal - Miscarriage of justice - Newly-discovered fact - Statute providing for certification and compensation - Inquiry as to whether applicants entitled to certificate that newly-discovered fact showed miscarriage of justice - Whether fact that there had been no trial where the non-disclosed material had been available was proper reason for refusing certificate - Criminal Procedure Act, 1993 (No. 40), s. 9.

Section 9 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1993, provides:—

"Where a person has been convicted of an offence and either—

(a) (i) his conviction has been quashed by the Court on an application under section 2 or on appeal, or he has been acquitted in any re-trial, and

• (ii) the Court or the court of re-trial, as the case may be, has certified that a newly-discovered fact shows that there has been a miscarriage of justice,

or

(b) (i) he has been pardoned as a result of a petition under section 7, and

• (ii) the Minister for Justice is of opinion that a newly-discovered fact shows that there has been a miscarriage of justice,

the Minister shall, subject to sub-sections 2 and 3, pay compensation to the convicted person or, if he is dead, to his legal personal representatives unless the non-disclosure of the fact in time is wholly or partly attributable to the convicted person."

The applicants had brought an application pursuant to s. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1993, before the Court of Criminal Appeal, seeking to have their convictions on counts of malicious damage and assault quashed, alleging that a newly-discovered fact showed that there had been a miscarriage of justice. The court held that the non-disclosure of the newly-discovered fact rendered the convictions unsafe and unsatisfactory and made an order quashing the convictions. No re-trial was ordered since the applicants had already served the sentences imposed. However, the court refused to certify pursuant to s. 9 of the Act of 1993 that the newly-discovered fact showed that there had been a miscarriage of justice. This refusal was based on the finding that the evidence against the applicants had never been considered by a jury in a trial in which the non-disclosed material had been available to the defence. The judgment of the Court is reported at [1995] 2 I.R. 517.

The Court certified under s. 29 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, that its decision involved a point of law of exceptional public importance and that it was desirable in the public interest that an appeal should be taken to the Supreme Court. The court framed the point of law in the following terms:—

"Whether the Court of Criminal Appeal, having quashed a conviction of an accused by reason of a failure of the Director of Public Prosecutions to disclose to such accused material pertinent to and which might have been of use in the presentation of his defence, and having determined not to order a retrial, erred in law in refusing to grant a certificate pursuant to s. 9 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1993, by reason only of the fact that the guilt or innocence of such accused had not been determined by a jury at a trial where the said non-disclosed material had been available to the accused?"

Held by the Supreme Court (Blayney, Denham, Barrington, Murphy and Lynch JJ.), in allowing the appeal and remitting the case to the Court of Criminal Appeal, 1, that once an applicant had satisfied one of the three conditions in sub-s. 1 (a) (i) of s. 9 of the Act of 1993 he was entitled to have the court enter on an inquiry as to whether he was entitled to a certificate that a newly-discovered fact showed that there had been a miscarriage of justice.

2. That the Court of Criminal Appeal ought to have entered on such an inquiry and erred in law in refusing to grant a certificate pursuant to s. 9 of the Act of 1993 by reason only of the fact that the guilt or innocence of the applicants had not been determined by a jury at a trial where the non-disclosed material had been available to the accused.

Per curiam: The judgment of the court did not express any opinion on the actual decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal to refuse to grant a certificate under s. 9 of the Act of 1993 but was confined to disagreeing with the exclusive reason for the refusal.

Cases mentioned in this report:—

Bray v. Ford [1896] A.C. 44; [1895-9] All E.R. Rep. 1000; 65 L.J.Q.B. 213; 73 L.T. 609; 12 T.L.R. 119.

Chamberlain v. R. [1991] L.R.C. (Crim.) 285.

Chidiak v. R. [1985] L.R.C. (Crim.) 360.

Morris v. R. [1987]...