DPP v Murphy
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Judge | Clarke C.J.,MacMenamin J.,O'Malley J. |
| Judgment Date | 22 May 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] IESCDET 104 |
| Date | 22 May 2019 |
[2019] IESCDET 104
THE SUPREME COURT
DETERMINATION
Clarke C.J.
MacMenamin J.
O'Malley J.
The Court does not grant leave to the Applicant to appeal to this Court from the Court of Appeal
| COURT: Court of Appeal |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT OR RULING: 20 th June, 2018 |
| DATE OF ORDER: 20 th June, 2018 |
| DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 18 th December, 2018 |
| THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 9 th January, 2019 AND WAS IN TIME. |
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 33 rd 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.
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.
The applicant seeks leave to appeal to this Court against the decision of the Court of Appeal to uphold his convictions on one charge of assaulting a police officer acting in the course of his duty and one charge of obstructing traffic (see The People (DPP) v Murphy [2018] IECA 187).
The applicant originally faced four charges. He was acquitted of assaulting a second officer, and was also acquitted of a charge of dangerous driving involving a tractor with a mower attachment. It is worth noting that it was expressly accepted by the defence that the dangerous driving offence would be made out if the prosecution version of events was believed.
The first of the two issues now raised relates to the evidence of one of the two Garda witnesses, Sergeant James Murphy. The sergeant was cross-examined on the basis that the applicant denied the specific details of the alleged assault and had been attempting to defend himself against the unlawful use of force. The sergeant responded that the applicant had made a complaint to the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission (‘GSOC’), and that there had been a finding of no wrongdoing on the part of the gardaí. Counsel attempted to close this off by saying that this was opinion evidence from someone else, but the witness continued:-
‘Well, I have written confirmation from GSOC that they have found that the guards did nothing wrong on the night in...
To continue reading
Request your trial