Peadar Ó Maicín v Éire
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Judge | Mr. Justice John MacMenamin,Mr. Justice Hardiman,O'Neill J. |
| Judgment Date | 27 February 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] IESC 12 |
| Docket Number | [Uimh. C.U. 292 de 2010],[S.C. No. 292 of 2010] |
| Date | 27 February 2014 |
and
and
[2014] IESC 12
THE SUPREME COURT
Judicial review - Criminal law - Jury panel - Representation of community - Language rights - Right to conduct official business in the Irish language without translation - Absolute rights - Limitations - State obligations - Constitution of Ireland
This appeal examined the extent of the entitlement of an accused person to have a criminal trial conducted in Irish without translation so far, at least, as their own participation in the trial is concerned. The appellant was a native speaker of the Irish language who had been charged with two offences of assault. He was subsequently returned for jury trial to the Circuit Criminal Court. It was indicated by the appellant that he would be defending the charges in the Irish language, and he asserted a right that the trial should take place before a judge and jury capable of understanding him without translation.
The State objected to this request on the basis that it would be impossible to provide a jury who could understand him directly and that the provision of such a jury would necessarily involve the imposition of some sort of test of competence in the Irish language, which was at odds with the need for a jury to be selected by a random process. An application for judicial review was brought challenging this decision but it was rejected on the basis of the second argument that had been advanced by the State. An appeal of that decision was then initiated in the Supreme Court.
Held by Clarke J. (with O"Donnell Donal J. concurring and Hardiman J. dissenting) that given the fact that Article 8.1 of the Constitution of Ireland states that Irish is the 'first official language' of Ireland, the State had certain obligations to ensure that those who wished to conduct their business using the Irish language could do so, particularly when the business was with the State. Nevertheless, the State was also constitutionally obligated to ensure that a jury was correctly composed and selected. It was, therefore, said that there were three issues to be determined: the extent of any language rights enjoyed by the appellant; the constitutional obligations in regards to the composition of a jury; and the extent to which a conflict between any rights and obligations arising under the first two questions could be resolved.
On the first issue, it was clear from Article 8.3 of the Constitution that the State had an 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 business in Irish was not absolute and had to be balanced against any other competing constitutional interests. On the second issue, it was held that Article 38.5 of the Constitution and established case law demonstrated that there was a State obligation to ensure that juries are broadly representative or represent a fair cross-section of the community. This clearly meant that if a jury panel was unrepresentative, it was unconstitutional.
Finally, the third issue was considered. It was noted that in the case of MacCarthaigh - which was broadly similar to the facts of the present case – it had been held that the limited number of Irish speakers at that time meant that a jury panel made up exclusively of such individuals would be unrepresentative of the community. It was noted that no argument had been advanced that the number of Irish speakers had dramatically increased since the time when the MacCarthaigh judgment was delivered. It was also pointed out that it had not been established that it would be possible to empanel a jury with sufficient competence in Irish to conduct an important criminal trial without the assistance of a translator even in Gaeltacht areas. For those reasons, it was held that the appellant"s constitutional right to conduct official business in Irish had to give way to the constitutional obligation for jury panels to be truly representative. It was pointed out, however, that if underlying conditions were to change then the balance between this language right and that constitutional imperative to have a jury broadly representative of the community could adjust.
Appeal dismissed.
CONSTITUTION ART 8.1
CONSTITUTION ART 38.5
O MAICIN v EIRE & ORS UNREP MURPHY 14.5.2010 2010/41/10413 2010 IEHC 179
CONSTITUTION ART 38
CONSTITUTION ART 40.3.3
SHEEHAN, STATE v GOVT OF IRELAND 1987 IR 550 1988 ILRM 437
O'FOGHLUDHA & ORS v MCCLEAN 1934 IR 469
O BEOLAIN v DISTRICT JUDGE FAHY & ORS 2001 2 IR 279 2001/18/4947
CONSTITUTION ART 8.3
CONSTITUTION ART 8
MACCARTHAIGH v IRELAND & ORS 1999 1 IR 200 1980-1998 IR (SR) 127
KELLY & ORS THE IRISH CONSTITUTION 3ED 1994 657
DE BURCA & ANDERSON v AG 1976 IR 38
BYRNE, STATE v FRAWLEY 1978 IR 326
TAYLOR v LOUISIANA 1975 419 US 522
EVANS BILINGUAL JURIES? 2007 38 CAMBRIAN LR 145
NON-FATAL OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1997 S3
FIREARMS & OFFENSIVE WEAPONS ACT 1990 S11
CONSTITUTION OF THE IRISH FREE STATE ART 4
CONSTITUTION ART 8.2
LAW REFORM CMSN CONSULTATION PAPER ON JURY SERVICE (LRC CP 61-2010) 112-113
JURIES ACT 1976 S9(2)
CONSTITUTION ART 4
CONSTITUTION ART 5
CONSTITUTION ART 38.1
C (C) v IRELAND & ORS 2006 4 IR 1
COURTS SERVICE ANNUAL REPORT 2011 17
MINISTERS & SECRETARIES (AMDT) ACT 1956 S2
GAELTACHT ACT 2012 S6
GAELTACHT ACT 2012 S5
GAELTACHT ACT 2012 PART I
GAELTACHT ACT 2012 S7
JURIES ACT 1976 S5
JURIES ACT 1976 S12
CIRCUIT COURT RULES 2001 SI 510/2001
KOHN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE IRISH FREE STATE 1932 124
CONSTITUTION ART 20
CONSTITUTION ART 25
CONSTITUTION ART 25.4.3
CONSTITUTION ART 25.4.4
CONSTITUTION ART 15.2
MOGUL OF IRELAND LTD v TIPPERARY (NORTH RIDING) CO COUNCIL 1976 IR 260
O MURCHU v CLARAITHEOIR NA GCUIDEACHTAI 1980-1998 IR (SR) 112 1990/8/2171
MACCARTHAIGH v EIRE & ORS 1999 1 IR 186
CONSTITUTION ART 3
SHULMAN NO HABLO INGLES: COURT INTERPRETATION AS A MAJOR OBSTACLE TO FAIRNESS FOR NON-ENGLISH SPEAKING DEFENDANTS 1993 46 VAND L REV 175
R v POORAN; R v VAILLANT UNREP BROWN 4.3.2011 2011 ABPC 77
JURIES ACT 1976 S11
JURIES ACT 1976 S15(3)
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT 2003 S8
JURIES ACT 1976 S5(2)
JURY DISTRICTS ORDER 2013 SI 115/2013
LAW REFORM CMSN CONSULTATION PAPER ON JURY SERVICE (LRC CP; 61-2010) 112-113
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT 2003 S8(4)
JURIES ACT 1976 SCHED 1 PART I
JURIES ACT 1976 S5(1)
HOGAN & WHYTE JM KELLY: THE IRISH CONSTITUTION 4ED 2003 380
DOHERTY v GOVT OF IRELAND & AG 2011 2 IR 222 2011 2 ILRM 516 2010/12/2901 2010 IEHC 369
COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT 1924 S44
CONSTITUTION ACT 1982 PART I (CANADA)
CANADA ACT 1982 SCHED B (UK)
CONSTITUTION ACT 1982 SS16-22 (CANADA)
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES OF NEW BRUNSWICK ACT 1969 (CANADA)
HELIE MICHEL BASTARACHE'S LANGUAGE RIGHTS LEGACY 2009 47 SCLR (2D) 377
CONSTITUTION ACT 1867 (CANADA)
INNIS BILINGUALISM & BICULTURALISM: AN ABRIDGED VERSION OF THE ROYAL CMSN REPORT 1973
CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS & FREEDOMS ACT 1982 (CANADA)
SCHULLER & VIDMAR THE CANADIAN CRIMINAL JURY 2010-11 86 CHI-KENT L REV 497
R v BEAULAC 173 DLR (4TH) 193 1999 1 SCR 768
REFERENCE RE SECESSION OF QUEBEC, IN RE 1998 2 SCR 217 161 DLR (4TH)
ARSENAULT-CAMERON & ORS v GOVT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND 1999 3 SCR 851
EEC REG 1257/2010
M'BRIDE v M'GOVERN 1906 2 IR 181
SUMMARY JURISDICTION (IRL) ACT 1851 S12(1)
GROENER v MIN FOR EDUCATION & CITY OF DUBLIN VOCATIONAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE 1989 ECR 3967 1990 1 CMLR 401
TREATY OF ROME ART 177
TREATY OF ROME ART 48(3)
EEC REG 1612/68 ART 3
FEDERACION DE DISTRIBUIDORES CINEMATOGRAFICOS v ESTADO ESPANOL & UNION DE PRODUCTORES DE CINE Y TELEVISION 1994 EMLR 153 1993 ECR I-2239
HARTLEY THE FOUNDATIONS OF EUROPEAN COMMUNITY LAW 6ED 2007 68
GAELTACHT AREAS ORDER 1956 SI 245/1956 S2
O MONACHAIN v AN TAOISEACH & ORS 1986 ILRM 660 1980-1998 IR SR 1 1980-1998 IR SR 71
AG, SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN v OPEN DOOR COUNSELLING LTD & DUBLIN WELLWOMAN CENTRE LTD 1988 IR 593
MCGIMPSEY v IRELAND & ORS 1990 1 IR 110 1990 ILRM 441 1990/4/989
ART 26 OF THE CONSTITUTION & CRIMINAL LAW (JURISDICTION) BILL 1975, IN RE 1977 IR 129 1976 109 ILTR 69
CONSTITUTION ART 2
COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT 1924 S71
MAC FHEARRAIGH, STATE v MAC GAMHNIA 1980-1998 IR (SR) 29 1980-1998 IR (SR) 99 1990/7/2015
CONSTITUTION ART 38.3
CONSTITUTION ART 38.4
THIEL v SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO 1946 328 US 217
JURIES ACT 1927 S3
CONSTITUTION ART 40
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT 2003 S2
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT 2003 S8(1)
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT 2003 S8(2)
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT 2003 S8(3)
Note: This is an approved translation of the judgment which was delivered in Irish
Judgment of Mr. Justice Clarke delivered the 27th February, 2014.
JUDGMENT of O'Neill J. delivered on the 27th day of February, 2014
JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Hardiman delivered the 27th day of February, 2014.
Judgment of Mr. Justice John MacMenamin delivered the 27th day of February, 2014.
Judgments delivered by Clarke J, O'Neill J, Hardiman J & MacMenamin J
2 1.1 The special status...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
North East Pylon Pressure Campaign Ltd v an Bord Pleanála
...see The State (Quinn) v. Ryan [1965] I.R. 70 per Ó Dálaigh C.J. at 120, cited in numerous decisions, including Ó Maicín v. Ireland [2014] IESC 12 (Unreported, Supreme Court, Hardiman J., 27th February, 2014). 175 Casey was based on the doctrine requiring the court to ' reach constitutiona......
-
Agha (A Minor) v Minister for Social Protection
...than to help': see Murphy v. Attorney General [1982] I.R. 241, 286, per Kenny J.. But, as O'Donnell J. explained in Murphy v. Ireland [2014] IESC 12, the law has, in any event, long moved on from these cautious and hesitant early days:- 'Article 40.1 is a guarantee of equality before the ......
-
Ó Cadhla v The Minister for Justice and Equality
...[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 implementation of the status of the Irish language as the first official ......
-
Sinnott v Minister for The Environment
...the Government to adduce evidence to afford justification for not bringing the section into force. 68 In Ó Maicín v. Ireland & Ors. [2014] 4 I.R. 583 which concerned a native Irish speaker's wish to be tried before a bilingual jury, Clarke J. aptly in the context of the current focus in the......
-
An Mithid Duinn an Truicear a Tharraingt ar Airteagal 8.3 de Bhunreacht na hÉireann 1937?
...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 An Coimisiún um Athchóiriú an Dlí , Consultation Paper Jury Ser......
-
TD v Minister for Education: Hard Case, Bad Law
...in order to protect private property rights. Ruadhán MacCormaic The Supreme Courtᅸ (Penguin 2016) 259. 71 In Ó Maicín v Ireland [2014] 4 IR 583, again concerning Irish language rights, Clarke J at [4.3.3] suggested, ‘I would […] leave to a case in which the issue specifically arose, the qu......
-
Interconstitutionalism.
...and 1979 past Constitutions of Ghana and has been consistendy interpreted in the same manner by the Supreme Court"); O Maicin v. Ireland [2014] IESC 12 (Ir.) (Hardiman, J., dissenting) (observing, in a case where the majority rejected claims that the 1937 constitution confers a right to a b......
-
Case Note: Gaeilge Bhriste? Irish Language Rights in Ó Maicín v Ireland
...Protection for the Irish Language in Ireland (Academia: Research Paper, 2014) (visited 1 February 2015). 3 Ó Maicín v Ireland [2014] IESC 12 [hereinafter Ó Maicín ]. 4 Joshua Castellino provides an excellent analysis of the evolution of the “language rights as human rights” discourse in “Af......