DPP v Wilson
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | O'Donnell Donal J.,McKechnie J.,O'Malley J. |
| Judgment Date | 03 June 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] IESCDET 47 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Date | 03 June 2016 |
[2016] IESCDET 47
THE SUPREME COURT
DETERMINATION
O'Donnell Donal J.
McKechnie J.
O'Malley J.
This determination concerns an application for leave brought by the applicant in relation to the judgment of the Court of Appeal in DPP v. Wilson & anor. [2015] IECA 275.
The applicant was convicted by the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court on 21st February, 2013 on a single count of burglary. A sentence of 7 years imprisonment was imposed. The appeal is from the entire decision of the Court of Appeal dismissing the applicant's appeal against conviction.
The applicant requests a priority hearing as he is serving the sentence imposed.
The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to hear appeals is set out in the Constitution.
Article 34 of the Constitution provides for the public administration of justice; describes the courts established by the Constitution, and those which may be established by law; provides for the full and original jurisdiction of the High Court; establishes the Court of Appeal under Article 34.2; and sets out its appellate jurisdiction under Article 34.4.1°. This states:
‘1° The Court of Appeal shall –
(i) Save as otherwise provided by this Article,
(ii) With such exceptions and subject to such regulations as may be prescribed by law, have appellate jurisdiction from all decisions of the High Court, and also shall have appellate jurisdiction from such decisions of other courts as may be prescribed by law.’
Article 34.4.3° of the Constitution also provides for the finality of decisions of the Court of Appeal, save for appeals that may be taken to the Supreme Court from its decisions under Article 34.5.3°.
The Article relevant to this appeal, where the Court of Appeal has already given judgment in a matter, is Article 34.5.3°, which states:
‘The Supreme Court shall, subject to such regulations as may be prescribed by law, have appellate jurisdiction from a decision of the Court of Appeal if the Supreme Court is satisfied that –
(i) the decision involves a matter of general public importance, or
(ii) in the interests of justice it is necessary that there be an appeal to the Supreme Court.’
The decision of the Supreme Court under Article 34.5.6 is, in all cases, ‘final and conclusive’.
Primarily, this Court is now ‘ subject to such regulations as may be prescribed by law’, an appellate jurisdiction from the Court of Appeal. Such an appeal may only be exercised provided that this Court is satisfied, either that the relevant decision of the Court of Appeal ‘involves a matter of general public importance’, or, alternatively, that it is ‘in the interests of justice’, necessary that there be an appeal to this Court. The constitutional framework established by the 33rd Amendment of the Constitution thus requires, in order for a party to be entitled to appeal to this Court from a decision of the Court of Appeal, that it be demonstrated that either ‘ a matter of general public importance’ arises, or that, ‘in the interests of justice, it is necessary that there be an appeal’ to this Court.
The statutory framework for the exercise of the right to appeal to this Court for such leave is to be found in the Court of Appeal Act, 2014, and, in particular, the provisions of s.44 of that Act, which inserts a new s.7 into the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961.
The Rules of Court are set out in the amended Order 58 of the Rules of the Superior Courts.
Persons convicted on indictment retain a statutory right of appeal to the Court of Appeal. What is sought here is a second appeal. In both civil and criminal matters the jurisdiction to bring an appeal to this Court is confined principally to cases where, as a result of the determination of the Court of Appeal, the decision of that court is such that the issues raised on a proposed appeal would involve a matter of general public importance, or would be such that it is in the interests of justice that there be a further appeal to this Court. It is not the function of this Court to review decisions of the Court of Appeal for error.
The alleged offence arises out of an incident on 3rd June, 2009, when two men entered a dwelling house in Blanchardstown. One of the occupiers was hit over the head with a meat cleaver and shortly thereafter two shots were fired. Witnesses at the scene named the applicant and his co-accused as being the two men involved. The applicant is said to have been named as the man with the meat cleaver while the co-accused was said to have had the gun.
The applicant was arrested pursuant to s. 30 of the Offences against the State Act, 1939, as amended, on suspicion of having...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DPP v Wilson
...Prosecutions, the respondent, is referred to as 'the respondent'. 3 On the 3rd June, 2016: Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Wilson [2016] IESCDET 47, this Court granted leave to appeal on the following ground:- The Court considers that the applicant has raised a point of general public i......