Rock v Ireland
Jurisdiction | Ireland |
Judgment Date | 01 January 1998 |
Neutral Citation | 1998 WJSC-SC 13991 |
Date | 01 January 1998 |
Docket Number | [S.C. No. 16 of 1996] |
Court | Supreme Court |
BETWEEN:
and
and
1998 WJSC-SC 13991
HAMILTON C.J.
O'FLAHERTY J.
DENHAM J.
BARRINGTON J.
KEANE J.
THE SUPREME COURT
Synopsis
Constitutional
Legislation; constitutional challenge; personal rights; right to silence; presumption of innocence; proportionality; statute providing for inferences to be drawn in respect of persons arrested in certain circumstances for failing to account; whether infringement of constitutional right to silence; whether necessary part of trial in due course of law; test to be applied in assessing proportionality of restriction; whether restriction on individual rights proportionate to the State's duty; whether unwarranted interference with presumption of innocence; presumption of constitutionality; Arts. 38.1 & 40.3.1 of the Constitution; ss. 18 & 19 Criminal Justice Act, 1984 Held: Legislation not repugnant to Constitution (Supreme Court: Hamilton C.J., O'Flaherty J., Denham J., Barrington J., Keane J. 19/11/1997 Judgment of the Court delivered by Hamilton C.J.)
Rock v. Ireland - [1997] 3 IR 484 - [ 1998] 2 ILRM 35
Citations:
EAST DONEGAL CO-OP V AG 1970 IR 317
ADOPTION (NO 2) BILL 1987, IN RE 1989 IR 656
FORGERY ACT 1913 S8
RSC O.84 r22(4)
HEANEY V IRELAND 1994 3 IR 593
CONSTITUTION ART 38.1
OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S52
O'LEARY V AG 1995 1 IR 254
OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 PART V
CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1984 S18(4)
CONSTITUTION ART 40
COX V IRELAND 1992 2 IR 503
TUOHY V COURTNEY 1994 3 IR 1
19th day of November 1997 by the Chief Justice pursuant to the provisions of Article 34, s. 4, sub-s. 5 of the Constitution of Ireland
This is an appeal brought by Paul Rock, (hereinafter called the Appellant), against the judgment of Murphy J. delivered on the 10th day of November 1995, and the order made in pursuance thereof, whereby he dismissed the Appellants claim for:-
(a) a declaration that Section 18 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1984is inconsistent with the provisions of Bunreacht na hÉireann and accordingly unconstitutional;
(b) a declaration that Section 19 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1984, is inconsistent with the provisions of Bunreacht na hÉireann and accordingly unconstitutional;
(c) an order of prohibition and/or an injunction (including interim and interlocutory order) restraining the Notice Party from further prosecuting the proceedings against the Appellant.
Section 18 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1984(hereinafter referred to as the Act), provides that:-
2 "(1) Where
(a) a person is arrested without warrant by a member of the Garda Síochána, and there is -
(i) on his person, or
(ii) in or on his clothing or footwear, or
(iii) otherwise in his possession, or
(iv) in any place in which he is at the time of his arrest,
any object, substance or mark, or there is any mark on any such object, and the member reasonably believes that the presence of the object, substance or mark may be attributable to the participation of the person arrested in the commission of the offence in respect of which he was arrested, and
(b) the member informs the person arrested that he so believes, and requests him to account for the presence of the object, substance or mark, and
(c) the person fails or refuses to do so, then if, in any proceedings against the person for the offence, evidence of the said matters is given, the court, in determining whether to send forward the accused for trial or whether there is a case to answer and the court (or, subject to the judge's directions, the jury) in determiningwhether the accused is guilty of the offence charged (or of any other offence of which he could lawfully be convicted on that charge) may draw such inferences from the failure or refusal as appear proper; and the failure or refusal may, on the basis of such inferences, be treated as, or as capable of amounting to, corroboration of any other evidence in relation to which the failure or refusal is material, but a person shall not be convicted of an offence solely on an inference drawn from such failure or refusal.
(2) References in subsection (1) to evidence shall, in relation to the preliminary examination of a charge, be taken to include a statement of the evidence to be given by a witness at the trial.
(3) Subsection (1) shall apply to the condition of clothing or footwear as it applies to a substance or mark thereon.
(4) Subsection (1) shall not have effect unless the accused was told in ordinary language by the member of the Garda Síochána when making the request mentioned in subsection (l)(b) what the effect of the failure or refusal might be.
(5) Nothing in this section shall be taken to preclude the drawing of any inference from a failure or refusal to account for the presence of an object, substance or mark or from the condition of clothing or footwear which could properly be drawn apart from this section.
(6) This section shall not apply in relation to a failure or refusal if the failure or refusal occurred before the commencement of this section."
Section 19 of the said Act provides that:-
2 "(1) Where -
(a) a person arrested without warrant by a member of the Garda Síochána was found by him at a particular place at or about the time the offence in respect of which he was arrested is alleged to have been committed, and
(b) the member reasonably believes that the presence of the person at that place and at that time may be attributable to his participation in the commission of the offence, and
(c) the member informs the person that he so believes, and requests him to account for such presence, and
(d) the person fails or refuses to do so, then if, in any proceedings against the person for the offence, evidence of the said matters is given, the court, in determining whether to send forward the accused for trial or whether there is a case to answer and the court (or, subject to the judge's directions, the jury) in determining whether the accused is guilty of the offence charged (or of any other offence of which he could lawfully be convicted on that charge) may draw such inferences from the failure or refusal as appear proper; and the failure or refusal may, on the basis of such inferences, be treated as, or as capable of amounting to, corroboration of any evidence in relation to which the failure or refusal is material, but a person shall not be convicted of an offence solely on an inference drawn from such failure or refusal.
(2) References in subsection (1) to evidence shall, in relation to the preliminary examination of a charge, be taken to include a statement of the evidence to be given by a witness at the trial.
(3) Subsection (1) shall not have effect unless the accused was told in ordinary language by the member of the Garda Síochána when making the request mentioned in subsection (l)(c) what the effect of the failure or refusal might be.
(4) Nothing in this section shall be taken to preclude the drawing of any inference from the failure or refusal of a person to account for his presence which could properly be drawn apart from this section.
(5) This section shall not apply in relation to a failure or refusal if the failure or refusal occurred before the commencement of this section."
The Act having been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas and signed by the President in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution is entitled to the presumption of constitutionality.
As the provisions of the Act and the impugned sections thereof, enjoy the presumption of constitutionality, the onus is on the Appellant to establish clearly that the impugned sections are repugnant to the Constitution.
In considering the question whether the impugned sections of the Act are repugnant to the Constitution, the Court must apply the principles of the presumption of constitutionality as laid down by it in East Donegal Co-operative .v. The Attorney General (1970) I.R. 317,which are summarised in the decision of this Court in The Adoption (No. 2) Bill, 1987(1989) I.R. 656 as follows at page 661 of the report:-
2 "(1) That it must be presumed that all proceedings, procedures, discretions and adjudications permitted or prescribed by the Bill are intended to be conducted in accordance with the principles of constitutional justice, and
(2) That as between two or more reasonable constructions of the terms of the Bill, the construction that is in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution would prevail over any construction that is not in accordance with such provisions."
The provisions of the Constitution upon which the Appellant relies are:-
No person shall be tried on any criminal charge save in due course of law."
And
The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen."
The Appellant is charged that on the 4th day of May, 1994 at the Burlington Hotel, in the Dublin Metropolitan District he without lawful authority or excuse had in his possession forged banknotes, to wit, 2,000 forged United States 100 dollar banknotes, knowing the same to be forged, contrary to Section 8 of the Forgery Act, 1913.
The circumstances in which that charge came to be made are set out in the Affidavit grounding the application to the High Court, that is say, the affidavit of Mr. Patrick McGonagle, the...
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Re National Irish Bank Ltd (No 1)
...State to fulfil its obligations under the Constitution. The People (Attorney General) v. GilbertIR [1973] I.R. 383; Rock v. IrelandIR [1997] 3 I.R. 484; The People v. McGowanIR [1979] I.R. 45; In re London United Investments plc.ELR [1992] Ch. 578 approved. 4. That the only entitlement expr......
-
Markey v Minister for Justice and Others
...CCA, Hardiman J, 19/7/2010), Hardy v Ireland [1994] 2 IR 550, O'Leary v Attorney General [1995] 1 IR 254 and Rock v Ireland [1997] 3 IR 484 considered - JF v Director of Public Prosecutions [2005] IESC 24 [2005] 2 IR 174, O'Callaghan v Mahon [2005] IESC 9 [2006] 2 IR 32 and Bonisch v Au......
-
DPP v Finnerty
...(PUBLIC ORDER) ACT 1994 S34 OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S52 HEANEY V IRELAND 1994 3 IR 593 CONSTITUTION ART 38.1 ROCK V IRELAND 1998 2 ILRM 35 NATIONAL IRISH BANK LTD (UNDER INVESTIGATION) & COMPANIES ACT 1990, IN RE 1999 1 ILRM 321 1 JUDGMENT of the court delivered the 17th day o......
-
Minister for Justice v Stapleton
...ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S24(1) EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S42(c) HEANEY v IRELAND 1994 3 IR 593 1994 2 ILRM 420 ROCK v IRELAND 1997 3 IR 484 1998 2 ILRM 35 MURPHY v IRTC 1999 1 IR 12 1998 2 ILRM 360 ART 26 OF THE CONSTITUTION & PART v OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BILL 1999, RE 2000 2 IR......
-
The right to silence: Inferences and interference
...v DPP [2005] IESC 29People (DPP) v Healy [1990] 2 IR 73Re National Irish Bank (under investigation) (No.1) [1999] 3 IR 145Rock v Ireland [1997] 3 IR 484; [1998] 2 ILRM 35United StatesMiranda v Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966)Murphy v Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor 378 U.S. 52 (1964)Con......
-
Subject Index
.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236Roach vR [2011] HC12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366Rock v Ireland [1997] 3 IR 484, [1998] 2 ILRM 35. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .195Rongonui v The Queen [2010] NZSC 92, [2011] 1......
-
Ireland: Curtailment of the right to silence through statutory adverse inferences
...LawAct 1997, s 2 (1), as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 2006, s 8.28. Sections 18 and 19 of the Criminal Justice Act 1984.29. [1998] 2 ILRM 35.30. [1996] 1 IR 580, [1997] 1 ILRM 117.352 New Journal of European Criminal Law Court stated that the right to silence is protected as a coroll......
-
Equality of arms' between the suspect interrogated in garda custody and the gardaí?
...and Wales?” (2007) 17 I.C.L.J. 2a, 4. 41 Rock v. Ireland (High Court, unreported, Murphy J., 10 November 1995). 42 Rock v. Ireland [1997] 3 I.R. 484. Judicial Studies Institute Journal [2010:1 12 approval; upheld as constitutional provided the “proportionality test” has been passed, which, ......