MacCarthaigh v Ireland, Attorney General

JurisdictionIreland
Judgment Date01 January 1999
Neutral Citation[1998] IESC 11
Date01 January 1999
Docket Number[1993,[1993 Uimh. 154 A.B.; Uimh. C. Uach. 379 de 1995]
CourtSupreme Court
(H.C., S.C.)
MacCárthaigh
and
Ireland

- Capacity to understand Irish language - Judicial review - Prohibition -Mandamus - Declaration - Whether requirement for jury to have capacity to understand Irish language without assistance of interpreter - Rules of the Circuit Court, 1955 (S.I. No. 1), O. 1, r. 5 - Juries Act, 1976 (No. 4), Part I, Part II, First Schedule -Constitution of Ireland, 1937, Arts. 8, 38.5.

The applicant was charged with three criminal offences, inter alia, that he did within the Dublin Metropolitan District, rob assorted chocolates and confectionery to the total value of £11,252.50. It was arranged to try the applicant on the charges in question before a judge sitting with a jury in the Circuit Court. The applicant wished to conduct his own side of the criminal proceedings in the Irish language and intimated that anything to be said by him in evidence or any submission to be made by any lawyer acting on his behalf would be in that language. The matter was being prosecuted in the English language by the third respondent. The trial was adjourned to afford the applicant an opportunity to seek judicial review in the High Court requiring a jury having the capacity to understand the Irish language without the assistance of an interpreter. Held by the High Court (O'Hanlon J.), in refusing the application, that there was no violation of the rights of the applicant under the Constitution in not providing a jury which would have an ability to understand evidence or other statements to be made in the Irish language without the assistance of an interpreter. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court. Held by the Supreme Court (Hamilton C.J., O'Flaherty, Murphy, Lynch and Barron JJ.) in dismissing the appeal that, if every member of a jury had to be able to understand legal matters in the Irish language without the assistance of an interpreter, then the majority of the people of Ireland would be excluded. That would amount to a violation of Article 38.5 of the Constitution.

[1998] IESC 11

AN CH ÚIRT UACHTARACH

Ó HAIMILTÍN, PRÍOMN-BHREITHEAMH

Ó FLAITHEARTAIGH, BREITHEAMH

Ó BEARÁIN, BREITHEAMH

Ó MURCH Ú, BREITHEAMH

Ó LOINGSIGH, BREITHEAMH

379/95
MACCARTHAIGH v. EIRE & ORS
IDIR
RUAIRÍ Mac CÁRTHAIGH
Iarratasóir/Achomharcóir
agus
ÉIRE, AN t-ÁRD AIGHNE agus STIURTH ÓIR na n-IONCHUISEAMH POIBLÍ
Freagróiri
Abstract:

Constitution - Personal Rights - Trial in due course of law - Trial by jury - Applicant/Appellant charged under the provisions of the Larceny Act 1916 as amended by the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act, 1976 - Applicant reared through Irish - Elected to have proceedings heard in Irish - Whether the State under a duty to select a jury made up of persons all of whom can understand Irish without the aid of a translator - Judicial review - Constitution of Ireland 1937, Article 8 and Article 38.

Bunreacht — Cearta pearsanta — Triail mar is cui de reir dli — Triail os comhair giuire — Cuisiodh an tIarratasoir/Acomharcoir de reir an Larceny Act 1916, mar a leasaiodh ag an Acht um Dli Coiriuil (Dlinse), 1976 e — Togadh le Ghaeilge e — Shocraigh se go mbeadh na himeachtai go leir riaraithe tri Gaeilge — An bhfuil ar an Stat giuire a roghnu ata ar a gcumas Gaeilge a thuiscint gan cabhair ateangaire — Bunreacht na hEireann 1937, Arteagal 8 agus Arteagal 38.

It is the right of any citizen to have any proceedings initiated against them by the State disposed of in Irish. However this right does not extend to the selection of a jury the members of which must have sufficient Irish to understand the evidence and arguments without the aid of a translator. The jury must represent a true cross-section of the community: de Búrca v Attorney General [1976] IR 38, State (Byrne) v Frawley [1978] IR 326 applied. To exclude non Irish-speakers would be to exclude 75-90% of the community of Dublin from consideration. The Chief Justice accepted that the testimony and legal arguments of the accused in a criminal trial would be imprecise where delivered through a translator, and that the accused might suffer some prejudice as a result. However, representation was held to be more important to the requirement of trial by jury as set out in Article 38.5 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

De reir Arteagal 8 de Bhunreacht na hEireann:

"1. Os i an Ghaeilge an teanga naisiunta is i an phriomhtheanga oifigiuil i." Da bhri sin, ta se de cheart ag gach saoranach aon imeachtai dlithiuil ina choinne a phle tri Ghaeilge mas mian leis. In ainneoin sin, nil se de cheart ag an gcuisi i gcas coiriuil a shocru nach roghnofai ach amhain daoine ata ar a gcumas Gaeilge a thuiscint gan cabhair o ateangaire. Ni mor do bhaill an ghiuire a bheith ina n-ionadaithe do gach aicme agus gur trasghearradh den bpobal i gceantair an gcuisi iad: de Burca v Attorney General [1976] IR 38, State (Byrne) v Frawley [1978] IR 326 curtha san aireamh. Mura mbeadh ach daoine le Ghaeilge liofa ina mbaill den ghiuire, chuirfi 75-90% de mhuintir Baile Atha Cliath ar leataobh. Duirt an Phriomh-Bhreitheamh nach mbeadh an fhianaise agus aighneachtai an gcuisi fior-sholeir da mbeadh ath-teangaire in usaid, agus go gcaillfeadh se as. Shocraidh se afach go ndeanfai saru ar fhoralacha Airteagal 38.5 den Bhunreacht da nglacfadh an Chuirt le h-aighneachtai an Iarratasora. Mar sin dhibhiodh an acomharc.

1

Breithiúnas a thug an Príomh-Bhreitheamh Ó h-Aimiltín, an 15ú lá d'luil 1998.

2

Acomharc é seo atá a dheanamh ag an t-Iarratasóir/Acomharcóir Ruairí Mac Carthaigh i gcoinne Ordú na h-Ard Cuirte, 14/09/1994, ag diúltiú (agus costasaí dágearradh air comh maith) don t-Iarratasóir iarratas athbhreithnithe a dhéanamh ar mhaithe leis na faoisimh seo a leanas, sé sin:

3

1. Ordú choisc ag fógairt don Freagróir tríú-luaite gan dul ar aghaidh le h-aon triail don Iarratasóir ach amháin os comhair giúiré atáa ar a gcumas Gaeilge a thuiscint gan cabhair ath-teangaire;

4

2. Ordú mandamus ag fógairt don Freagróir tríú-luaite giúiré feidhmiúil a thionól maidir le riachtanasaí triail de réir cirt a bheith ag an t-Iarratasóir in-luaite;

5

3. Dearbhú chomh maith nó ina ionad sin go bhfuil an Iarratasóir i dteideal giúiré nach bhfuil baill éagcumasacha páirteach ann de réir forálacha Acht na Giúirithe, 1976.

6

Cúisíodh an Iarratasóir i dteannta duine eile agus cuireadh ina leith:-

7

1. Go rinne sé, ar an 28ú lá Bealtaine, 1990, ag Bóthar Suardais, Corballis, laistigh de Dhúiche Chathrach Átha Cliath, meascán seaclaidí agus milseogra go raibh luach iomlán £11,252.50 orthu a goid, contrartha d'alt 23 den Larceny Act, 1916, mar...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Peadar Ó Maicín v Éire
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 27 Febrero 2014
    ...obligation to promote and respect the high status of the Irish language. Nevertheless, it was said that the case of MacCarthaigh v. Eire [1999] I.R. 200 showed that there were limitations on the rights which those who may wish to use Irish can enjoy. As such, the right to conduct official b......
  • Ó Cadhla v The Minister for Justice and Equality
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 20 Junio 2019
    ...of the Supreme Court in cases such as Ó Monacháin v. An Taoiseach [1980-1998] TÉTS 1, [1986] ILRM 660; MacCárthaigh v. Éire [1999] 1 IR 186; Ó Beoláin v. Fahy [2001] 2 IR 279; and Ó Maicín v. Éire [2014] 4 IR 477, which jurisprudence emphatically upholds the need for a practical impleme......
  • MacCarthaigh v Minister for Justice and ors
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 14 Mayo 2002
    ...rights under Article 8. Cases mentioned in this report:- Kamasinski v. Austria (1991) 13 E.C.H.R. 36. MacCárthaigh v. Ireland [1999] 1 I.R. 200; (1998) I.R. (S.R) 127. Mercure v. Attorney General Saskatchewan [1988] 1 S.C.R. 234. State (MacFhearraigh) v. MacGamhnia (1980) I.R. (S.R.) 99. Ju......
4 books & journal articles
  • An Mithid Duinn an Truicear a Tharraingt ar Airteagal 8.3 de Bhunreacht na hÉireann 1937?
    • Ireland
    • Cork Online Law Review No. 19-2020, January 2020
    • 1 Enero 2020
    ...an Dlí go mba chóir go gcoimeádtar an ‘fluency screening’ seo d’fhonn cumas sa Bhéarla an duine a fháil 32 Mac Cárthaigh v Éire [1998] IESC 11, [1999] 1 IR 200. 33 Ó Maicín v Éire [2010] IEHC 179; [2014] IESC 12. 34 de Búrca v Attorney General [1976] IR 38. 35 ‘Acht 1976’ as seo amach. 36 A......
  • Case Note: Gaeilge Bhriste? Irish Language Rights in Ó Maicín v Ireland
    • Ireland
    • Trinity College Law Review No. XVIII-2015, January 2015
    • 1 Enero 2015
    ...language obligations that merit closer analysis: 16 [2014] IESC 12, at para. 16. 17 [2014] IESC 12, at para. 67. 18 MacCárthaigh v Éire [1999] 1 IR 186; [1998] IESC 11. MacMenamin J also follows the MacCárthaigh principle in his judgment. 19 De Búrca v Attorney General [1976] IR 38. 20 [201......
  • Interpreting criminal justice: a preliminary look at language, law and crime in Ireland
    • Ireland
    • Irish Judicial Studies Journal No. 2-9, July 2009
    • 1 Julio 2009
    ..., Communication No. 219/1986, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/39/D/219/1986, (1990), Yves Cad v. France , Communication No. 221/1987, U.N. Doc. 74 [1999] 1 I.R. 186. [198 IR (Special Reports) 127. 75 [1988] S.C.R. 234, at 237, Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 23, The Rights of Minorities (Art C......
  • Wie bitte?: Rechte sprachlicher Minderheiten im Gerichtsverfahren in Irland und Deutschland
    • Ireland
    • Trinity College Law Review No. XXVI-2023, January 2023
    • 1 Enero 2023
    ...Official Languages Act 2003. 40 Mark de Blacam, 'Official Language and Constitutional Interpretation' (2014) 52 Irish Jurist 90, 98. 41 (1998) IESC 11, [1999] 1 IR 200; [2014] IESC 12, (2014) 4 IR 583. 42 De Blacam (40) 99. 43 [2019] IEHC 503. 44 (2001) IESC 37, (2001) 2 IR 279. 90 Trinity ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT