MacCarthaigh v Minister for Justice and ors
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 14 May 2002 |
| Neutral Citation | 2002 WJSC-HC 4870 |
| Date | 14 May 2002 |
| Docket Number | 2000 23JR,[2000 No.23 J.R.] |
| Court | High Court |
BETWEEN
AND
2002 WJSC-HC 4870
THE HIGH COURT
Synopsis:
CRIMINAL LAW
Judicial review
Prohibition - Irish language - Fair procedures -Interpretation of evidence - Translation - Whether courts obliged to provide simultaneous translation system - Whether courts obliged to provide transcript of hearing (2000/23JR - Finnegan J - 14/5/2002)
MacCarthaigh v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform - [2002] 4 IR 8
Facts: The applicant had been charged with a number of offences. The applicant had previously initiated judicial review proceedings seeking to have a jury empanelled which understood the Irish language. Those proceedings had been dismissed. In these proceedings the applicant issued judicial review proceedings seeking an order directing the provision of a satisfactory recording system and one providing a simultaneous translation system. The applicant also sought an order of prohibition preventing the trial from proceeding pending the provision of the reliefs sought.
Held by Finnegan J in refusing the relief sought. There was now available for use in the Circuit Criminal Court a system which provided for transcribing evidence. This satisfied the applicant's demand that a transcript be provided. The court was not satisfied that the interests of justice would be better served by a system of simultaneous translation than the system of sequential translation which was already being utilised.
Citations:
LARCENY ACT 1916 S23
CRIMINAL LAW (JURISDICTION) ACT 1976 S10
LARCENY ACT 1916 S33(1)
CRIMINAL JUSTICE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1997 S7
COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT 1924 S33
RSC O.86 r14
CONSTITUTION ART 8
MERCURE V AG OF SASKATCHEWAN 1988 SCR (CAN) 237
MACFHEARRAIGH, STATE V MACGAMHNIA 1980–1998 IR (SR) 99
MACCARTHAIGH V IRELAND 1980–1998 IR (SR) 133
SHULMAN 1993 46 VANDERBILT LAW REVIEW 177
14th day of May 2002
The Applicant was charged with another person and it was alleged against him -
(1) That he did on the 28th May 1990 at Swords Road, Corballis within the Dublin Metropolitan District rob one John Nelson of assorted chocolates, sweets and confectionery to the total value of £11,252.50 contrary to section 23 of the Larceny Act 1916 as amended by the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act 1976.
(2) That he did on the 28th May 1990 at Swords Road, Corballis within the Dublin Metropolitan District by threat or force unlawfully seize a vehicle to wit motor vehicle 89D 29349 contrary to section 10 of the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act 1976.
(3) That he did on the 28th May 1990 at 5 Henrietta Lane, Dublin in the Dublin Metropolitan District receive assorted chocolates, sweets and confectionery to the total value of £11,252.50 property of John Nelson knowing the same to have been stolen contrary to section 33(1) of the Larceny Act 1916.
The trial of the Applicant was delayed pending determination of an application by him for Judicial Review in which he sought the following reliefs -
(1) An Order of Prohibition directed to the Director of Public Prosecutions preventing him proceeding with any trial of the Applicant except before a jury having the capacity to understand the Irish language without the assistance of an interpreter.
(2) An Order of Mandamus directed to the Director of Public Prosecutions requiring him to empanel a representative jury to ensure that the Applicant will have a trial according with the requirements of justice.
(3) A Declaration that the Applicant is entitled to a jury excluding from its make up incapable members as referred to in the Jurys Act 1976.
Relief was refused in the High Court (O'Hanlon J) and in the Supreme Court.
Thereafter when the trial came on before the Circuit Court the same was again stayed pending the present application for Judicial Review.
On this application the Applicant seeks the following reliefs-
2 (1)An Order of Certiorari quashing the Order of the Learned Circuit Court Judge in which he held that an accused person did not have the right to have a transcription taken of proceedings at his trial as spoken.
(2) An Order of Mandamus directed to the first named Respondent and the second named Respondent -
(a) Directing the provision of a satisfactory recording system for the trial of the Applicant and/or
(b) Directing the provision of an effective simultaneous translation system which would not interfere with the speeches and submissions of Counsel and would facilitate the conduct of the trial.
(3) An Order of Prohibition restraining the trial of the Applicant before the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court on Bill No. 333/92 until there is provided -
(a) A satisfactory recording system and/or
(b) A simultaneous translation service.
Insofar as the reliefs sought at (1), (2)(a) and (3)(a) above are concerned there is now available for use in the Circuit Criminal Court and there will be available at the trial of the Applicant a Lanier System which complies with the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1997section 7 which substituted a new section 33 for that in the Courts of Justice Act 1924. The Courts of Justice Act 1924now reads as follows -
" 33(1) The appeal, in cases where such certificate or leave to appeal is granted, shall be heard and determined by the Court of Criminal Appeal ("the court") on-
(a) a record of the proceedings at the trial and on a transcript thereof verified by the judge before whom the case was tried, and
(b) where the trial judge is of opinion that the record or transcript referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection does not reflect what took place during the trial, a report by him as to the defects which he considers such record or transcript, as the case may be, contains
with power to the court to hear new or additional evidence and to refer any matter for report by the said judge.
a (2) Where the court is of opinion that either the record or the transcript thereof is defective in any material particular it may determine the appeal in such manner as it considers, in all the circumstances, appropriate.
b (3) In this section "record" includes in addition to a record in writing
(a) shorthand notes or a disc, tape, soundtrack or other device in which information, sounds or signals are embodied so as to be capable (with or without the aid of some other instrument) of being reproduced in legible or audible form,
(b) a film, tape or other device in which visual images are embodied so as to be capable (with or without the aid of some other instrument) of being reproduced in visual form and
(c) a photograph".
In addition the Lanier System is in compliance with the Rules of the Superior Courts Order 86 Rule 14. I am satisfied that the provision of a transcript by means of the Lanier System and the official stenographer's transcription thereof satisfies the requirement of the Applicant that a transcript of the proceedings in the Circuit Court as spoken will be available for the purposes of any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ó Cadhla v The Minister for Justice and Equality
...it is sufficient if such interpretation is consecutive rather than simultaneous ( MacCárthaigh v. Minister for Justice [2002] 4 IR 8). However, as we have seen, the Act of 2003 gives a court flexibility on this particular issue (section 8(3) of the Official Languages Act, The Supreme Court......