Marques v DPP

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: O'Donnell J.,McKechnie J.,Dunne J.
• Judgment Date: 25 May 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] IESCDET 51
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 25 May 2017

[2017] IESCDET 51

SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

O'Donnell J.

McKechnie J.

Dunne J.

BETWEEN

ERIC EOIN MARQUES

APPLICANT

AND

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

AND

IRELAND

AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

RESPONDENTS

AND

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY

NOTICE PARTY

AND

IRISH HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUALITY COMMISSION

AMICUS CURIAE

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:

1 This determination relates to an application brought by the applicant for leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal (Peart, Birmingham and Sheehan JJ concurring) of the 19 ^th December 2016, whereby that court refused an appeal against the order of the High Court (Donnelly J) of the 16 ^th of December 2016, refusing the applicant's application for relief by way of judicial review against the DPP in which the applicant had sought to quash the decision of the DPP not to prosecute the applicant in respect of offences relating to the advertising and distribution of child pornography in respect of which his extradition had been sought to the USA. It was alleged against Mr Marques that he was the administrator of an anonymous web hosting service which operated on a computer network allowing users to communicate and to host entire websites anonymously. It was further contended that this activity was carried out at Mr Marques” home in Ireland. Mr Marques had offered to plead guilty, and indeed to proffer signed pleas of guilt to the offences in Ireland. In a judgment of the 16 ^th of December 2016, the High Court (Donnelly J) rejected the applicant's challenge to the decision of the DPP not to direct his prosecution on offences of child pornography in Ireland. The significance of this procedure lies in the provisions of s.15 of the Extradition Act 1965 (as amended) under which an extradition order would not be made if a prosecution for the said offence was in being in Ireland, or being considered.

2 The High Court concluded that the decision of the DPP was not invalid, nor was it a decision in respect of which the DPP was required to give reasons. That decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

3 It should be noted that any ruling on a determination is made between the parties thereto and on the information available. It is final and conclusive as far as the parties...