Ryan v DPP

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr. Justice Barron
Judgment Date21 October 1988
Neutral Citation1988 WJSC-HC 2962
Docket Number[1988 J.R. No. 56],No. 56/1988
CourtHigh Court
Date21 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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • DPP v Bambrick
    • Ireland
    • Circuit Court
    • 26 July 1996
    ... ... Citations: AG V O'CALLAGHAN 1966 IR 501 OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE (AMDT) ACT 1940 PART II OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE (AMDT) ACT 1940 S3(2) OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE (AMDT) ACT 1940 S3(5) OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE (AMDT) ACT 1940 S4(1) RYAN V DPP 1989 IR 399 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1984 S11 DPP V JACKSON UNREP CCA 26.4.93 DPP V G 1994 1 IR 587 DPP, PEOPLE V TIERNAN 1988 IR 250 CONSTITUTION ART 40 PREVENTION OF CRIME ACT 1908 Synopsis: CRIMINAL LAW Sentence Manslaughter ... ...
  • J. Harris (Assemblers) v DPP
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 1 February 2012
    ...AT WORK ACT 1989 S48(1)(A) SAFETY HEALTH & WELFARE AT WORK ACT 1989 S10(1)(A) DEVOY v DPP 2008 4 IR 235 Z v DPP 1994 2 IR 476 RYAN v DPP 1988 IR 232 1989 ILRM 466 1988/10/2962 SAFETY HEALTH & WELFARE AT WORK ACT 1989 S50 BARKER v WINGO 1972 407 US 514 DPP v BYRNE 1994 2 IR 236 NOONAN v ......
  • Minister for Justice and Equality v Downey
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 1 March 2019
    ...legal test to spread into one of negligence (see para 3 of the judgment). 82 It is perhaps helpful to quote from Barron J. in Ryan v. DPP [1988] IR 232 for an understanding of an abuse of process, although that case concerned a criminal prosecution in this jurisdiction. In that case, Barro......
  • Burke v Central Independent Television Plc
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 3 March 1994
    ... ... 11.93 1993/13/4009 SUTHERLAND V STOPES 1925 AC 47 CAMPBELL V IRISH PRESS LTD 90 ILTR 105 DUFFY V NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS LTD 1992 2 IR 369 CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT 1981 UK O'KELLY, IN RE (1974)108 ILTR 97 DPP, PEOPLE V SHAW 1982 IR 1 DPP, PEOPLE V RYAN 1989 ILRM 333 ... 1 JUDGMENT delivered on the 3rd day of March 1994by Finlay C.J. [BLAYNEY, DENHAM CONC] ... 2 This is an appeal brought by the Defendant against an order made in the High Court by Murphy J. on the 21st October 1993 rejecting the ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT