Pringle v Ireland

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Francis D. Murphy
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1994
• Neutral Citation: 1994 WJSC-HC 1751
• Docket Number: No. 326p/1992
• Court: High Court
• Date: 01 January 1994

1994 WJSC-HC 1751

THE HIGH COURT

No. 326p/1992

PRINGLE v. IRELAND

BETWEEN

PETER PRINGLE

PLAINTIFF

AND

IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

DEFENDANTS

Citations:

LARCENY ACT 1916 S23

CRIMINAL LAW (JURISDICTION) ACT 1976 S5

COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT 1928 S6(2)

TASSAN DIN V BANCO AMBROSIANO SPA 1991 1 IR 569

COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT 1924 S29

COURTS (ESTABLISHMENT & CONSTITUTION) ACT 1961 S3

COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACT 1961 S12

HARDY V IRELAND UNREP SUPREME 18.3.93 1993/3/626

AMPTHILL PEERAGE CASE 1977 AC 547

WOODS, APPL OF 1970 IR 154

CONSTITUTION ART 34.4.6

KELLY V IRELAND 1986 ILRM 318

CONSTITUTION ART 40.4.2.2

EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES ACT 1883 S4(1)

MCDONAGH, STATE V FRAWLEY 1978 IR 131

CONSTITUTION ART 13.8.1

COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT 1924

CONSTITUTION ART 34

EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES ACT 1883 S4

Synopsis:

Offence

Trial - Conviction - Appeal - Dismissal - Finality - Murder - Conviction upheld by Court of Criminal Appeal - Subsequent civil action by accused - Action impugning conviction and sentence - Statute - Interpretation - Estoppel - Abuse of process - Courts of Justice Act, 1924, s. 29 - Offences Against the State Act, 1939, s. 44 - (1992/326 P - Murphy J. - 19/11/93)

|Pringle v. Ireland|

JUDGMENT

Finality

Offence - Trial - Conviction - Appeal - Dismissal - Murder - Conviction upheld by Court of Criminal Appeal - Subsequent civil action by accused - Action impugning conviction and sentence - Estoppel - Abuse of process - (1992/326 P - Murphy J. - 19/11/93)

|Pringle v. Ireland|

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

Offence

Trial - Conviction - Appeal - Dismissal - Finality - Murder - Conviction upheld by Court of Criminal Appeal - Subsequent civil action by accused - Action impugning conviction and sentence - Enactment providing that determination of appeal shall be final - (1992/326 P - Murphy J. - 19/11/93)

|Pringle v. Ireland|

WORDS AND PHRASES

"Determination ... shall be final"

Offence - Trial - Conviction - Appeal - Dismissal - Finality - Murder - Conviction upheld by Court of Criminal Appeal - Subsequent civil action by accused - Action impugning conviction and sentence - Estoppel - Abuse of process - (1992/326 P - Murphy J. - 19/11/93)

|Pringle v. Ireland|

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Francis D. Murphydeliveredthe 19th day of November 1993.

The Criminal Proceedings.

2 On the 27th day of November 1980 the Plaintiff herein, Peter Pringle, was convicted by the Special Criminal Court of the murder on the 7th of July 1980 of Henry Byrne who was then a member of An Garda Siochana acting in the course of his duty. On the same date Mr. Pringle was convicted of robbery contrary to Section 23 of the Larceny Act 1916 (as inserted by Section 5 of the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act 1976). On the charge of robbery the Plaintiff was sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of 15 years to date from the 27th of November 1980. As the terms in which the Death Penalty was expressed are material to the Plaintiff's claimherein are material to the argument advanced by him to this Court, I set out the awesome terms of that judgment as follows:-

"The sentence and judgment of the Court are and it is ordered and directed that you Peter Pringle be now, removed from this Court to the prison in which you were last confined and that you be there detained in custody and that on the 19th of December one thousand nine hundred and eighty you there suffer death by execution in the manner prescribed by law and that after such sentence shall have been carried into effect your body be buried within the precincts of the said prison".

"These are therefore to command you the Governor of Portlaoise Prison, Portlaoise in the County of Laois in which the said Peter Pringle is now confined that on Friday the 19th day of December in the year of Our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and eighty you take the body of the said Peter Pringle and that you cause execution of the judgment aforesaid to be done upon the said Peter Pringle in the manner prescribed by law and for you so doing this shall be your sufficient warrant".

3 The Plaintiff applied to the Court of Criminal Appeal for leave to appeal against the convictions aforesaid and that application was heard over a number of days in the months of April and May 1981. Having reviewed at length the submissions made to them, the Court concluded that theapplication for leave to appeal failed and the application was accordingly refused. Pursuant to Section 6 subsection 2 of the Courts of Justice Act 1928, the Court of Criminal Appeal directed that the sentence of death pronounced at the trial of Peter Pringle should have effect as if for the day mentioned therein the 8th day of June 1981 was substituted. On the 27th day of May 1981 the President of Ireland by an Instrument in writing under his hand commuted the death penalty imposed upon Patrick McCann, Colm O'Shea and Peter Pringle in the Special Criminal Court on the 27th of November 1980 to forty years penal servitude.

4 It does appear that on the 18th of June 1981 the Secretary to the Minister for Justice wrote to the Governor of Portlaoise Prison in the following terms:-

"Re: Patrick McCann, Colm O'Shea, Peter Pringle

I am directed by the Minister for Justice to inform you that the President, on the 27th May 1981, acting on the advice of the Government, commuted to penal servitude for forty years in each case, the sentence of death imposed by the Special Criminal Court on the 27th of November 1980 on the above named offenders on their conviction of the murder of Garda Henry Byrne.

I am to add that the decision of the Government to advise the President to commute the sentence was arrived at on the understanding that the full sentence of forty years would be served without remission".

The Present Proceedings.

5 The existing civil action commenced with the issue of a Plenary Summons on the 16th of January 1992. The Statement of Claim bears the date the 2nd of December 1991 but presumably was delivered subsequent to the issue of the Plenary Summons. In the Plenary Summons and more particularly the Statement of Claim the Plaintiff asserts that his prosecution, trial, conviction and sentence were conducted, carried out and imposed in a manner repugnant to the Constitution and in violation of his rights thereunder. He claims a declaration to that effect. He also seeks a declaration that certain statutes specified therein, or part thereof, are repugnant to the Constitution but in particular he claims "the restoration of his liberty and other human rights" as well as exemplary damages arising out of the matters aforesaid.

6 In the Statement of Claim Mr. Pringle sets out at considerable length and commendable clarity the history of the investigation by the Gardai into the robbery and capital murder with which the Plaintiff was subsequently charged. The Statement of Claim specifies the many respects in which it is alleged that the investigation of the facts; the interrogation and detention of the Plaintiff; the manner in which he was charged and the circumstances in which he was prosecuted before the Special Criminal Court are alleged to have been defective in law and in certain cases alleged to have been in breach and an abuse of the Plaintiff's constitutional rights. The defects alleged in the pre-trial procedures and within the trial itself are both numerous andserious. Perhaps the scope and nature of the Plaintiff's case can be summarised by quoting the opening paragraphs of the Statement of Claim which are as follows:-

7 2 "(1) That every action of Ireland taken against the Plaintiff in the course of his being prosecuted, from his arrest on the 19th of July 1980 to having a sentence of forty years penal servitude without remission pronounced upon him on the 27th of May 1981 and his present detention, were and are unlawful and repugnant to the Constitution and that he was not accorded due course of law as required by the Constitution and his rights under the Constitution were and continue to be violated.

8 (2) The claim and complaint of the Plaintiff is grounded upon the Constitution and the law and goes to the foundation of the trial of offences, to the essence of the Constitution and to the rights of the Plaintiff thereunder. The Plaintiff shall show that he could not have been prosecuted, tried, convicted or sentenced but for the abuse and misuse of law against him and shall sustain his claim and complaint withproofs".

9 In the Defence delivered on the 10th of April 1992 a plea in bar is raised in the following terms:-

10 2 "(1) The matters raised by the Plaintiff in the Statement of Claim have already been adjudicatedupon by the Special Criminal Court and, on appeal, by the Court of Criminal Appeal in a judgment dated the 22nd of May 1980, delivered in the Court of Criminal Appeal, No. 93/94/95 of 1981 and as such are resjudicata.

11 (2) If, which is denied, the matters raised by the Plaintiff in the Statement of Claim are not res judicata then they are matters which the Plaintiff was in a position to raise at his trial before the Special Criminal Court and, or, at his appeal before the Court of Criminal Appeal and by reason of his failure to raise them at that time he is estopped from raising them in these proceedings.

12 (3) The proceedings are an abuse of the process of the Court.

13 (4) It is denied that the Plaintiff has locus standi to maintain the proceedings in relation to any of the statutes which he seeks toimpugne".

14 The remaining paragraphs of the Defence dispute the truth of the allegations contained in the Statement of Claim but that part of the Defence was expressed to be without prejudice to the objections in law quoted above.

15 By Order of Mr. Justice Lardner made on the 15th of March 1993 it was ordered that the issues raised by paragraphs 1 to 4 aforesaid of the Defendants' Defence betried as a preliminary issue together with a Motion by the Defendants for an Order striking...