Heaney v Commissioner of an Garda Síochána
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Quirke J. |
| Judgment Date | 02 November 2005 |
| Neutral Citation | [2005] IEHC 337 |
| Docket Number | [2001 No. 117 J.R.] |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 02 November 2005 |
[2005] IEHC 337
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
NON FATAL OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1997 S2
CRIMINAL JUSTICE (PUBLIC ORDER) ACT 1994 S6
PROBATION OF OFFENDERS ACT 1907 S1(1)
EVISTON v DPP 2002 3 IR 260 2002 1 ILRM 134
CRIMINAL JUSTICE (PUBLIC ORDER) ACT 1994 S6
CRIMINAL JUSTICE (PUBLIC ORDER) ACT 1994 S9
RSC O.84 r18(2)
RSC O.19 r29
TINA FOWLEY v NOEL CONROY UNREP HIGH COURT CLARKE 27.2.2005
CRIMINAL LAW
director of public prosecutions
Director of Public Prosecutions Garda Síochána - Decision not to prosecute - Whether gardaí obliged to prosecute in respect of every complaint - Whether court can review manner in which complaint investigated - Whether court can interfere with decision not to prosecute - Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 (SI 15/1986), O 19, r 29 and O 84, r 18(2) - Judicial review refused (2001/117JR - Quirke J - 2/11/2005) [2005] IEHC 337 Heaney v Commissioner of An Garda Siochána
Quirke J. delivered the 2nd day of November 2005
By order of the High Court ( Ó Caoimh J.) dated 12 th March, 2001, the applicants were given leave to seek the following relief by way of judicial review-
(i) an order of mandamus directing the respondents to carry out a full and proper investigation into the complaints made by the applicants against Mr. Matt Ryan of 57 Sean Tracey Avenue, Thurles in the County of Tipperary,
(ii) a declaration that the decision of the respondents that there would be no prosecution in relation to complaints made by the applicants against Mr. Ryan was unlawful, void and of no legal effect,
(iii) a declaration that the decision of the respondents that there would be no prosecution in relation to complaints made by the applicants was unreasonable, arbitrary and unfair, and
(iv) a declaration that the investigation into the complaints made by the applicants against Mr. Ryan was carried out in an arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair manner.
1. The applicants live at Upper Bohernamona Road, Thurles in County Tipperary which is immediately adjacent to Sean Treacy Avenue. Their home is close to the home of Mr. Matt Ryan of 57 Sean Treacy Avenue and it is often necessary for the members of the applicants' family to pass Mr. Ryan's home when walking to and from their own home.
2. On 1 st November 1997, an incident occurred which gave rise to a complaint which was made by the applicants to the Gardai at Thurles. The complaint was that Mr. Matt Ryan had committed an assault upon the applicants' daughter Angela, who was then aged 11 years by pushing her from a wall. The complaint was investigated by Garda Harrington of Thurles garda station and a summons was issued which charged Matthew Ryan with assaulting Angela Heaney on that occasion contrary to the provisions of s.2 of the Non Fatal Offences against the Person Act 1997.
3. On 18 th October, 1997, an incident occurred at Sean Treacy Avenue which gave rise to a further complaint by the applicants who alleged that Matthew Ryan had prevented the free passage of traffic at that location. The matter was again investigated by Garda Harrington and a summons was issued charging Matthew Ryan with an offence under the Criminal Justice ( Public Order) Act 1994.
4. On 10 th January, 1998, an incident occurred at or near O'Neill's public house in Thurles which gave rise to a complaint by the applicants that Mr. Ryan had threatened one of the applicants. The matter was investigated by Garda Delaney of Thurles garda station and Matthew Ryan was charged with an offence under s. 6 of the Criminal Justice ( Public Order) Act, 1994.
5. On 20 th March, 1998, Matthew Ryan appeared before the District Court in Thurles. He pleaded guilty to each of the three offences with which he had been charged in respect of the incidents on 1 st September, 1997, 18 th October, 1997 and 10 th January, 1998.
The proceedings in the District Court were adjourned on a number of occasions and were finally dealt with on 11 th December, 1998.
On that date the District Court (Early J.) conducted a sentencing hearing. He heard additional evidence which included the following:-
(a) Evidence of an incident which was alleged to have occurred on 26 th November, 1998, when Mr. Ryan was alleged to have intimidated the applicants' daughter, Angela, by circling her with a motorcycle whilst wearing a balaclava helmet,
(b) Evidence of an alleged incident on 5 th December, 1998, when Mr. Ryan allegedly harassed the first named applicant at the "Pound Shop" in Liberty Street in Thurles and then followed her through the streets of Thurles. This incident had been investigated by Detective Garda Rogers who had taken statements from the first named applicant in relation to that matter,
(c) Evidence of another alleged incident on 5 th December, 1998, at Bohernamona Road, Thurles when Matthew Ryan was alleged to have followed the applicants' daughter, Angela, at that location, and
(d) Evidence of another incident when Matthew Ryan was alleged to have struck golf balls with a Hurley stick into the applicants' premises and, on one occasion, directly at the first named applicant and close to her head.
Having considered all of the evidence which gave rise to the charges with which Mr. Ryan had been convicted and all of the evidence of the subsequent events and complaints made by the applicants the District Court (Early J.) applied s. 1.1 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the offences to which Matthew Ryan had pleaded guilty.
6. On 1 st January, 1999, the applicants' made complaints to the Gardaí at Thurles Garda station in relation to alleged offensive conduct on the part of Matthew Ryan on 25 th December, 1998 and on 28 th December, 1998. Statements were made by the applicants in support of their complaint. These were recorded by Gardai, Ann Joyce and Henry Delaney.
7. On 2 nd January, 1999, the applicants' daughter, Louise Heaney, made a statement in support of the complaint made by her parents in relation to the alleged incident on 28 th January, 1998. The statement was also recorded by Garda Ann Joyce.
All three of these statements were mislaid by the Gardaí in Thurles Garda station. In consequence no formal or other investigation was conducted by or on behalf of the respondents in respect of these complaints.
The applicants, however, apparently had copies of these statements in their possession at all times from the time when the statements were made.
8. In July and August, 1999, a number of other incidents occurred which resulted in complaints which were made by the applicants to the gardai at Thurles garda station. These allegations were investigated by Detective Garda Edel Bracken and were referred to the second respondent (hereafter "the D.P.P".). On his instructions six summonses were issued charging Matthew Ryan with a number of offences (principally under the Criminal Justice ( Public Order) Act, 1994).
9. On 16 th March, 2000, an incident occurred which gave rise to a further complaint by the applicants who alleged that Matthew Ryan had used offensive language in respect of the first named applicant at Sean Tracey Avenue in Thurles and had behaved in a manner which was allegedly offensive, likely to cause a breach of the peace and unlawful. These matters were investigated by Detective Gardaí White and Lynch. In 1999 and 2000 a number of other complaints were made by the applicants regarding alleged misconduct by Mr. Ryan.
10. Matthew Ryan was arrested on 6 th July, 2000, under the provisions of s.4 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1984 and detained in Thurles Garda station where he was questioned for a period of five and a half hours in relation to the many complaints made by the applicants. He was not questioned about the incidents alleged to have occurred on the 25 th and 28 th December 1998.
Arising out of Mr. Ryan's detention on 6 th July 2000, a file was sent by the Gardaí to the D.P.P. seeking instructions and directions in respect of the complaints and allegations made by the applicants.
The D.P.P. directed that no prosecutions should be brought in respect of any of the complaints or allegations.
The applicant seeks the following relief by way of declarations:-
(1) That the decision of the respondents not to prosecute Matt Ryan was unlawful, void and of no legal effect,
(2) That the decision of the respondents not to prosecute Matt Ryan was unreasonable, arbitrary and unfair and,
(3) That the investigations into the complaints made by the applicants against Matt Ryan were carried out in an arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair manner.
In Eviston v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2002] I.R. 260 the Supreme Court (Keane C.J.), confirmed that "...the courts will not interfere with the decision of the ..(DPP)... not to prosecute where:
(a) no prima facie case of mal fides has been made out against the ..(DPP);
(b) there is no evidence from which it could be inferred that he has abdicated his functions or been improperly motivated and;
(c) the facts of the case do not exclude the reasonable possibility of a proper and valid decision of the ..(DPP) not to prosecute.."
Although the applicants have sought relief against both respondents they have expressly stated during the course of the proceedings that they make no allegations of misconduct, impropriety, illegality or any failure of duty on the part of the D.P.P.
It follows from the statement of principle cited in "Eviston" (above), that they...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foley v Workplace Relations Commission
...an investigation, which had not proceeded to a prosecution, is the decision of Quirke J. inHeaney v. Commissioner of An Garda Síochána [2007] 2 IR 69. In that case, leave was granted to seek, by way of judicial review, declarations that the decision, of the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána......
-
X.X. v Minister for Justice and Equality
...an answer to this problem to say that declarations can be granted when it is just and convenient to do so ( Heaney v. Garda Commissioner [2007] 2 I.R. 69 per Quirke J. at 76). The applicant has not explained why it is more just and convenient to seek declaratory relief only. The notion that......