DPP v Power

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: MacMenamin J.,Clarke C.J.
• Judgment Date: 01 August 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] IESCDET 190
• Date: 01 August 2019
• Court: Supreme Court
• Docket Number: Supreme Court record no: S:AP:IE:2019:000091 Court of Appeal record no: 2017 No. 236

THE PEOPLE AT THE SUIT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

AND

MICHAEL POWER

APPLICANT

[2019] IESCDET 190

Supreme Court record no: S:AP:IE:2019:000091

Court of Appeal record no: 2017 No. 236

THE SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

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

RESULT: The Court does not grant 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: 8 th March. 2019

DATE OF ORDER: 8 th March. 2019

DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 29 th April. 2019

THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 17 th May. 2019 AND WAS IN TIME.

Introduction

1 This is an application for leave to appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal (Birmingham P; Edwards and McCarthy JJ.), dated the 8 ^th March, 2019 ( [2019] IECA 74). The order of the Court of Appeal was made on the same date, and was perfected on the 29 ^th April, 2019.

General Considerations

2 The principles applied in deciding whether or not to grant leave to appeal having regard to the criteria incorporated into the Constitution under the 33 ^rd Amendment have been considered in many 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. Accordingly it is unnecessary to revisit the new constitutional architecture for the purpose of this determination.

3 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.

Background

4 On the 5 ^th October, 2017, the applicant was convicted of an assault causing serious harm contrary to s.4 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997 (“the 1997 Act”), assault causing harm contrary to s.3 of the 1997 Act, and producing a knife in the course of a dispute contrary to s.11 of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act, 1990. A sentence of 10 years imprisonment, with the final 18 months suspended on certain conditions, was imposed. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against the conviction.

5 At trial, the identification of the applicant as the assailant was in issue. Without notice to either side, a witness, Mr. Padraig O’Neill. purported to identify the accused as one of those involved...