H. S. v DPP

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Clarke C.J.,Irvine J.,Baker J.
• Judgment Date: 28 January 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] IESCDET 6
• Court: Supreme Court
• Docket Number: S:AP:IE:2019:000199 2018 No. 463 JR

BETWEEN

H. S.

APPLICANT

AND

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

RESPONDENT

[2020] IESCDET 6

Clarke C.J.

Irvine J.

Baker J.

S:AP:IE:2019:000199

A:AP:IE:2019:000091

2018 No. 463 JR

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: 22nd October, 2019

DATE OF ORDER: 22nd October, 2019

DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 4th November, 2019

THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 5th November, 2019 AND WAS IN TIME.

General Considerations

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 and in a unanimous judgment of a full Court delivered by O'Donnell J. in Quinn Insurance Ltd. v PricewaterhouseCoopers [2017] IESC 73, [2017] 3 I.R. 812. 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. It follows that it is unnecessary to revisit the new constitutional architecture for the purposes 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.

3 In that context, it should be noted that the respondent does oppose the grant of leave.

Decision

4 As appears from the notices filed, the applicant (“H.S.”) obtained an order of prohibition of a criminal trial from the High Court ( H.S. v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2019] IEHC 107). However, that decision of the High Court was reversed on appeal ( H.S. v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2019] IECA 266).

5 The basis on which H.S. had sought to have his criminal trial, on...