A v Governor of Arbour Hill Prison
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Judge | Murray C.J.,Denham J.,McGUINNESS J.,Mr. Justice Hardiman,Mr. Justice Geoghegan |
| Judgment Date | 10 July 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] IESC 45 |
| Docket Number | [S.C. No. 205 of |
| Date | 10 July 2006 |
BETWEEN
[2006] IESC 45
Murray C.J.
Denham J.
McGuinness J.
Hardiman J.
Geoghegan J.
THE SUPREME COURT
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Statute
Validity - Retroactivity - Effect of declaration of inconsistency - Pre-1937statute - Criminal offence - Unlawful carnal knowledge of minor - Acquiescence - Locus standi - Jus tertii - Whether provision continuing in force on enactment of Constitution - Whether declaration of unconstitutionality affected decisions already finally determined - Whether declaration of unconstitutionality operated with retroactive effect - Whether applicant by reason of his conduct was debarred from benefit of declaration - Whether declaration of unconstitutionality resulted in unlawful detention of applicant - Whether lack of locus standi resulted in failure to obtain benefit of declaration of unconstitutionality -Murphy v Attorney General [1982] IR 241;The State (McDonagh) v Frawley [1978] IR131; The State (Royle) v Kelly [1974] IR 259;O'Donovan v Attorney General [1961] IR114; McMahon v Attorney General [1972] IR69; de Burca v Attorney General [1976] IR38; The State (Byrne) v Frawley [1978] IR326; McDonnell v Ireland [1998] 1 IR 134;Cox v Ireland [1992] 2 IR 503 and Chicot County Drainage District v Baxter State Bank(1939) 308 US 371 considered - Constitution of Ireland 1937, Articles 15.4, 40, 50, -Criminal Law Amendment Act 1935 (No 6) -Respondent's appeal allowed (205/2006 - SC - 10/7/2006) [2006] IESC 45, [2006] 4 IR99; [2006] 2 ILRM 481
A v Governor of Arbour Hill Prison
MURPHY v AG 1982 241
BYRNE, STATE v FRAWLEY 1978 IR 326
CRIMINAL LAW ACT 1935 S1(1)
C (C) v IRELAND 2006 2 ILRM 161
CONSTITUTION ART 40.4.1
CONSTITUTION ART 50
CONSTITUTION ART 50.1
CONSTITUTION ART 15.4
DE BURCA v AG 1976 IR 38
MCMAHON v AG 1972 IR 69
CRILLY v FARRINGTON 2001 3 IR 251
DONOGHUE v STEVENSON 1932 AC 562
BYRNE v IRELAND 1972 IR 241
BLACKSTONES COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND (1809) BOOK I 69
POSNER THE PROBLEMS OF JURISPRUDENCE 1993
CARDOZO THE NATURE OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS 1921
EC TREATY ART 230
CMSN v PARLIAMENT C-178/03
DENKAVIT INTERNATIONAL v BUNDESAMT FUZ FINANZEN EX PARTE BRITISH TELECOM 1996 ECR 5063
BANCA POPOLARE DI CREMONA v AGENZIA ENTRATE UFFICIO CREMONA C-475/03
MARCKX v BELGIUM 1979 2 EHRR 330
ORISSA CEMENT LTD v STATE OF ORISSA 1991 SUPP (1) SCC 430
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ART 13 PAR 1
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ART 13 PAR 2 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ART 142
CHICOT CO DRAINAGE DISTRICT v BAXTER STATE BANK 1940 308 US 371
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ART 15 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ART 50
LINKLETTER v WALKER 1965 381 US 618
TEHAN v SHOTT 1966 382 US 406
STOVALL v DENNO 1967 338 US 293
CANADIAN CONSTITUTION ACT 1982 S52(1)
R v BAIN 1992 1 SCR91 R v WIGMAN 1987 1 SCR 246
ELECTORAL ACT 1923 K
ELLY THE IRISH CONSTITUTION
SINNOTT v MIN EDUCATION 2001 2 IR 545
MCGEE v AG 1974 IR 284
HEALY, STATE v DONOGHUE 1976 IR 325
GREENDALE DEVELOPMENTS LTD (NO 3), RE 2000 2 IR 514
CONSTITUTION ART 40
INCOME TAX ACT 1967
MCDONNELL v IRELAND 1998 1 IR 134
COX v IRELAND 1992 2 IR 503
OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S34
KOHN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE IRISH FREE STATE
UNITED NATIONS CHARTER
UNIVERSAL DECLARATON OF HUMAN RIGHTS
MARBURY v MADISON 1803 5 US 137
PIG MARKETING BOARD v DONNELLY (DUBLIN) LTD 1939 IR 413
BUCKLEY & ORS v AG 1950 IR 67
WOODS v AG 1969 IR 385
INCOME TAX ACT 1967 S192
INCOME TAX ACT 1967 S193
INCOME TAX ACT 1967 S194 INCOME TAX ACT 1967 S195
INCOME TAX ACT 1967 S196
INCOME TAX ACT 1967 S197
DEFRENNE v SABENA 1976 2 CMLR 98
DPP v FINN 2001 2 IR 25
CONSTITUTION ART 13.6
BLAKE v AG 1982 IR 117
RENT RESTRICTIONS ACT 1960 PART II
RENT RESTRICTIONS ACT 1960 PART IV
SCHACHTER v CANADA 1992 2 SCR 679
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT 1971
CORBIERE v CANADA (MIN OF INDIAN & NORTHERN AFFAIRS) 1999 2 SCR 203
CONSTITUTION ART 5
CRIMINAL LAW ACT 19971997 SCH 1
CONSTITUTION ART 26
O'DONOVAN v AG 1961 IR 114
CAHILL v SUTTON 1980 IR 269
SIMESTER (ED) APPRAISING STRICT LIABILITY 2005
SULLIVAN STRICT LIABILITY FOR CRIMINAL OFFENCES IN ENGLAND FOLLOWING INCORPORATION OF THE ECHR CH 8
CONSTITUTION PREAMBLE
CONSTITUTION ART 40.3.1
CONSTITUTION ART 40.3.2
AHERNE, STATE v COTTER 1982 IR 188
CRIMINAL LAW (AMDT) ACT 1935 S14
COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT 1924 S29
TAYLOR v LOUISIANA 1975 419 US 522
JUDGMENT delivered the 10th day of July 2006 , by Murray C.J.
"... [T]he fact that a provision was held to be no longer in force since 1937 does not automatically carry the corollary that what has been done under and in pursuance of that provision after the Constitution came into force will necessarily be condemned for lack of validity", Griffin J. in Murphy —v- Attorney General [1982] I.R. 241.
"... [I]t does not necessarily follow that Court Orders lack binding force because they were made in proceedings based on an unconstitutional statute." Henchy J. in The State (Byrne) —v- Frawley [1978] I.R. 326 at p. 349.
While I will return later to the context in which these judicial dicta were pronounced I mention them at the outset so as to highlight the fact that the issue which arises in this case, the retrospective effect on cases already decided of a finding that the provision of an Act is unconstitutional, is not a novel one although it does arise in this case in a novel manner and amplitude for reasons which I will refer to later.
The background to this case commences, in the first instance, with the conviction of the applicant before the Dublin Circuit Court on the 15th June, 2004 of the offence of unlawful carnal knowledge of a girl under the age of consent contrary to s. 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act, 1935 following a plea of guilty on his behalf. On 24th November, 2004 he was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment to date from 8th November, 2004.
In a judgment in another case, C.C. —v Ireland & Ors, delivered on the 23rd May, 2006 , this Court declared that s. 1(1) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1935 was inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution.
This decision followed an earlier determination by this Court, in judgments delivered on 12th July, 2005, in which s. 1(1) of the Act of 1935 was interpreted as precluding a defence being raised by a person charged with an offence under the section to the effect that he had reasonable grounds for believing that the girl in question was over the age of consent to sexual intercourse. Consequent upon that decision the issue as to the constitutionality of the section was heard on a subsequent date leading to the judgment concerning the section's unconstitutionality on 23rd May, 2006.
That section was one which did not apply to rape offences generally against adults or minors but to a specific statutory offence prohibiting consensual sexual intercourse with girls under the age of consent.
On 26th May, 2006 the applicant applied for an Order pursuant to Article 40.4.1 of the Constitution directing his release from custody on the grounds that his detention in accordance with the term of imprisonment imposed upon him following his conviction was unlawful since the section, s. 1(1) of the Act of 1935 had been declared inconsistent with the Constitution pursuant to Article 50.
By Order dated 30th May, 2006 the High Court decided that the applicant's further detention was unlawful and ordered his release.
The respondent appealed to this Court against the Order of the High Court which appeal was heard on 2nd June. At the conclusion of the hearing of that appeal this Court decided that the applicant's detention on foot of his conviction was lawful, the appeal was accordingly allowed and a warrant issued for the arrest of the applicant for the purpose of completing the sentence which he was serving.
When the decision of the Court was announced on that date it was stated that the reasons for the decision would be given subsequently.
As counsel for the applicant said, his argument in this case is quite simple and he put it in the following terms: his client was convicted of an offence under s. 1(1) of the Act of 1935. That section has been declared unconstitutional pursuant to Article 50 of the Constitution.
That means, because of its inconsistency with the Constitution, the provision was never the law in the State after the adoption of the Constitution in 1937. That in turn means it is deemed not to have been the law at the time of his conviction and sentence for the offence. For that reason alone the final judicial verdict convicting him and sentencing him to imprisonment was null and of no effect. Therefore he is not detained in accordance with law.
It is analogous to the consequence which also flows from a finding that a post-1937 Act of the Oireachtas is incompatible with the Constitution which has the consequence of such an Act being deemed invalid ab initio, that is to say that from the date of its enactment, and never to have entered into force.
He rests his case on the principle of void ab initio exclusively without regard to any other principles deriving from the Constitution.
It is an argument for complete or absolute retrospective effect of such a finding of unconstitutionality on cases previously and finally decided on foot of an impugned statute, so that those judicial decisions are void and of no effect. For the sake of convenience reference to the principle of void ab initio includes a reference to a pre-1937 Act...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Patrick Brennan and Others v The Governor of Portlaoise Prison
...taken at the appropriate time. That would, of course, be very much in line with the judgments in A v. The Governor of Arbour Hill Prison [2006] 4 IR 88 though that case covered a somewhat different factual situation and the principle applicable here long predated it. 43 For all these reason......
-
DPP v Hegarty
...v Roseberry Construction Ltd [2003] 4 IR 338, R v Dickson [1991] BCC 719, R v Cogan [1976] QB 217, A v Governor of Arbour Hill Prison [2006] IESC 45, [2006] 4 IR 88 and Cahill v Sutton [1980] IR 269 considered - Competition (Amendment) Act 2006 (No 4) - Competition Act 2002 (No 14) - Comp......
-
Bennett v DPP
...of legislation a. the attack cannot be made on a general or hypothetical basis (see para. 196 of A. v. Governor of Arbour Hill Prison [2006] 4 IR 88); b. if a party is not prejudiced nor in imminent danger of suffering any prejudice no locus standi arises ( Norris v. A.G. [1984] IR 36; c. ......
-
W.Q. v Mental Health Commission
...MENTAL HEALTH ACT 2001 S18(1)(a)(ii) MENTAL HEALTH ACT 2001 S17(1)(a) MENTAL HEALTH ACT 2001 S18(2) A v GOVERNOR OF ARBOUR HILL PRISON 2006 4 IR 88 2006/1/19 2006 IESC 45 497SS/2007 - O'Neill - High - 15/5/2007 - 2007 3 IR 755 2007 52 11134 2007 IEHC 154 1 JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice O'Neillde......
-
Judicial Review of the Decisions of the Director of Public Prosecutions
...warrant review, first need access to the reasons upon which the DPP based his decision. From the 67 [2006] IESC 33; [2006] 4 IR 1. 68 [2006] IESC 45; [2006] 4 IR 88. 69 [2007] IEHC 473, [2010] 1 IR 18. Trinity College Law Review [Vol 19 decision of Donnelly J in Marques , it seems that a de......
-
Case Note: Bederev v Ireland
...continue to function as a valuable tool in combating unconstitutional delegations of the legislative power. It is further hoped that 29 [2006] IESC 45; [2006] 2 ILRM 481 [hereinafter A ]. 30 [1999] 2 SCR 203. 31 [2006] IESC 33; [2006] 4 IR 1. 32 [2015] IECA 259. Trinity College Law Review [......
-
Casenote: PC v Minister for Social Protection
...Remedies in Reality: the Case for As-Applied Constitutional Challenges in Ireland’ (2014) 35 DULJ 53, 59. 5 [2006] IESC 45, [2006] 4 IR 88. 6 [2015] IECA 38, [2016] IESC 34. 7 Gerard Hogan, ‘Harkening to the Tristan Chords: The Constitution at 80’ (The Constitution at 80 conference, Limeric......
-
Crime control, the security state and constitutional justice in Ireland
...control theorists concentrate almost exclusively on legislative23. Kilcommins et al., 2004: 149. See AvGovernor of Arbour Hill Prison [2006] IESC 45.336 The International Journal of Evidence & Proof function (acting upon policy considerations) and ignore the sometimes conflicting narrative ......