Ryan v DPP

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr. Justice Barron
• Judgment Date: 21 October 1988
• Neutral Citation: 1988 WJSC-HC 2962
• Docket Number: [1988 J.R. No. 56],No. 56/1988
• Date: 21 October 1988

1988 WJSC-HC 2962

THE HIGH COURT

No. 56/1988

RYAN v. DPP

MICHAEL RYAN

.v.

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

Citations:

O'CALLAGHAN, STATE V O HUADHAIGH 1977 IR 42

KELLY V IRELAND & AG 1986 ILRM 318

Synopsis:

NATURAL JUSTICE

Fair procedures

Abuse of process - Evidence - Admissibility - Exclusion - Trial on indictment - Ruling of trial judge - Statement of accused excluded - Statement given to jury by mistake - Trial stopped and jury discharged - Retrial pending - Accused applied for order of prohibition preventing statement being tendered as evidence at retrial - Application dismissed - ~See~ Judicial Review, prohibition - (1988/56 JR - Barron J. - 21/10/88) - [1988] I.R. 232 - [1989] ILRM 466

|Ryan v. Director of Public Prosecutions|

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Prohibition

Trial - Indictment - Evidence - Admissibility - Trial judge ruled document inadmissible - Jury in receipt of document - Jury discharged- Exclusion of document at retrial - Fair procedures - At the trial of the applicant on indictment in the Circuit Court, the trial judge ruled that a written statement made by the applicant, and produced by the prosecution, was inadmissible but the document was given to the jury, with other papers, by mistake - When the mistake was discovered the trial judge stopped the trial and discharged the jury - The Director of Public Prosecutions arranged for the applicant to be retried on the same counts - Having obtained leave, the applicant applied to the High Court for an order of prohibition preventing the Director from adducing the written statement in evidence at the retrial of the applicant - The applicant contended (a) that a court of competent jurisdiction had adjudged the statement to be inadmissible as evidence against him at his trial on the charges contained in the said indictment and (b) that to deprive him of the advantage gained by the ruling of the trial judge in the abortive trial would be to apply an unfair procedure - Held, in dismissing the application, that a criminal trial was an entity which could not be severed or subjected to prior rulings where the jurisdiction of the court of trial was not questioned: ~The State (O'Callaghan) v. 0 hUadhaigh~ [1977] I.R. 42 and ~Kelly v. Ireland~ [1986] ILRM 318 considered - (1988/56 JR - Barron J. - 21/10/88) - [1988] I.R. 232 - [1989] ILRM 466

|Ryan v. Director of Public Prosecutions|

EVIDENCE

Admissibility

Exclusion - Trial on indictment - Ruling of trial judge - Statement of accused excluded - Statement given to jury by mistake - Trial stopped and jury discharged - Retrial pending - Fair procedures - Accused applied for order of prohibition preventing same evidence being adduced at retrial - Application dismissed - ~See~ Judicial review, prohibition - (1988/56 JR - Barron J. - 21/10/88) - [1988] I.R. 232 - [1989] ILRM 466

|Ryan v. Director of Public Prosecutions|

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Barrondelivered the 21st day of October 1988.

2 The Applicant was put on trial in the Circuit Criminal Court on charges of rape and other offences. His trial commenced on the 18th November 1987 and continued for three days. In the course of the trial, the trial judge was required to rule inter alia on the admissibility of certain verbal statements and a written statement made by the accused. He ruled each of these statements to be inadmissible. After the jury had retired to consider its verdict, it was discovered that the written statement which had been culed inadmissible had been given to the jury together with other exhibits. As a result the jury was discharged. The matter was re-entered to fix a date for a retrial. This was fixed on the 27th November 1987 for hearing on the 7th June 1988.

3 The present application is to restrain the Director of Public Prosecutions on the retrial from seeking to have these statements admitted in evidence. The grounds upon which relief is sought are set out as:

4 a "(a) The clearly identifiable issue and justiciable controversies between the same parties having been determined in the first trial in a final...