Todd v Judge Murphy, DPP, Ireland & Attorney General

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Geoghegan
• Judgment Date: 15 May 1998
• Neutral Citation: [1998] IEHC 76
• Docket Number: No. 415 JR/1997
• Court: High Court
• Date: 15 May 1998

TODD v. JUDGE MURPHY, DPP, IRELAND & ATTORNEY GENERAL

JUDICIAL REVIEW

BETWEEN

DAVID TODD

APPLICANT

AND

HIS HONOUR JUDGE A.G. MURPHY, THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLICPROSECUTIONS, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

RESPONDENTS

[1998] IEHC 76

No. 415 JR/1997

THE HIGH COURT

Synopsis

Practice and Procedure

Judicial Review; transfer of criminal trial; publicity; jurisdiction of District Court Judge; whether Judge erred in law in exercising his jurisdiction in light of publicity; whether danger of a prejudiced jury; whether s 32, Courts and Court Officers Act, 1995 is constitutionally invalid Held: Application refused (High Court: Geoghegan J.15/05/1998)- [1999] 2 IR 1 Todd v. Judge Murphy

Citations:

COURTS & COURT OFFICERS ACT 1995 S32

CONSTITUTION ART 34.3.4

HUNT, STATE V O'DONOVAN 1975 IR 39

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1967 S13(2)(b)

MURPHY V BATLISS UNREP SUPREME 22.7.1976 1976/7/1094

EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S47(5)

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Geoghegandelivered the 15th day of May 1998

2 This is an application pursuant to leave granted by Ms. Justice Laffoy by Order of the 24th November, 1997 seeking Judicial Review of an Order of the first named Respondent, Judge Murphy, refusing to transfer a criminal trial from Cork to Dublin. Essentially, the grounds of application were two fold. In the first instance, it is claimed that the Judge erred in law in exercising his jurisdiction having regard to the large amount of publicity which the case had undoubtedly attracted in Cork and the alleged danger of a prejudiced jury if the case was tried in Cork. In the alternative, the Applicant claims a declaration that Section 32 of the Courts and Court Officers Act, 1995which is the Section providing for applications to transfer cases from another circuit to Dublin is invalid having regard to theConstitution.

3 After considering the evidence which was before Judge Murphy and the nature of the reasoned ruling which he made and having heard the arguments of Counsel, I came to the conclusion that, on the assumption that Section 32 is not invalid having regard to the Constitution, the learned Circuit Court Judge could not be faulted in the exercise of his discretion having regard to the clear reasons which he gave. Accordingly, it now falls to be determined by this Court whether Section 32 is constitutional or not. It goes without saying that the Section attracts the presumption of constitutionality. The Applicant relies for the most part on Article 34.3.4 of the Constitution which reads asfollows:-

"The Courts of First Instance shall also include courts of local and limited jurisdiction with a right of appeal as determined bylaw".

4 It is argued on behalf of the Applicant that as the Circuit Court is a court of local and limited jurisdiction, there is a constitutionally guaranteed right of appeal from all orders of it whereas the 1995 Act specifically provides that there is no appeal from an order of the Circuit Court refusing to transfer a criminal trial to Dublin. Unless the Section is unconstitutional therefore, the Applicant is left only with the remedy of Judicial Review but not with the...