Todd v Judge Murphy, DPP, Ireland & Attorney General

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr. Justice Geoghegan
Judgment Date15 May 1998
Neutral Citation[1998] IEHC 76
Docket NumberNo. 415 JR/1997
CourtHigh Court
Date15 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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Brohoon v Ireland
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 4 March 2011
    ...... Plaintiff . and . Ireland, The Attorney General and The Director of Public Prosecutions . ... S.F. v. Murphy [2009] IEHC 497, (Unreported, High Court, ...O'Donovan [1975] I.R. 39. Todd v. Murphy [1999] 2 I.R. 1; [1999] 1 I.L.R.M. ...The trial judge refused the application. The plaintiff ......
  • Todd v Judge Murphy, DPP, Ireland & Attorney General
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 1 January 1999
  • Brohoon v Ireland and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 4 March 2011
    ...Killeen v DPP [1997] 3 IR 218 and Dillane v Ireland [1980] ILRM 167 considered; State (Hunt) v Donovan [1975] IR 39, Todd v Murphy [1999] 2 IR 1 and SF v Murphy [2009] IEHC 497 (Unrep, Hedigan J,18/11/ 2009) applied - Criminal Procedure Act 1967 (No 12) s 4E (7) - Constitution of Ireland......
  • F(S) v Her Honour Judge Yvonne Murphy, DPP, Ireland and Attorney General
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 18 November 2009
    ...... 2007/19/3829 2007 IEHC 450 CURTIN v CLERK OF DAIL EIREANN & ORS UNREP SUPREME 6.4.2006 2006/13/2688 2006 IESC 27 DUNNE v MIN FOR ENVIRONMENT & ORS 2008 2 IR 775 2007/16/3368 2007 IESC 60 SEKANINA v AUSTRIA 1994 17 EHRR 221 RUSHITI v AUSTRIA 2001 33 EHRR 56 TODD v JUDGE MURPHY & ORS 1999 2 IR 1 DILLANE v IRELAND & AG 1980 ILRM 167 1980/12/2233 AG, PEOPLE v BELL & ORS 1969 IR 24 1971 105 ILTR 41 DPP, PEOPLE v PRINGLE (NO 2) 1997 2 IR 225 LUTZ v GERMANY 1988 10 EHRR 182 HUNT, STATE v O'DONOVAN & AG 1975 IR 39 ......
  • 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