White v The Governor of Mountjoy Prison

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Dunne J.,O'Donnell J.
• Judgment Date: 12 July 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] IESCDET 175
• Docket Number: A:AP:IE:2017:000543
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 12 July 2019

[2019] IESCDET 175

SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

O'Donnell J.

Dunne J.

Charleton J.

A:AP:IE:2017:000543

IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION

BETWEEN

MERVIN WHITE

APPLICANT

AND

THE GOVERNOR OF MOUNTJOY PRISON

RESPONDENT

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO WHICH ARTICLE 34.5.3° OF THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES

RESULT: The Court does not grant leave to the Applicant to appeal to this Court from the Court of Appeal

REASONS GIVEN:

ORDER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED

COURT: Court of Appeal

DATE OF JUDGMENT OR RULING: 16 th January, 2019

DATE OF ORDER: 16 th January, 2019

DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 12 th March, 2019

THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 22 nd March, 2019 AND WAS IN TIME.

General considerations

1 The general principles applied by this court in determining whether to grant or refuse leave to appeal, having regard to the criteria incorporated into the Constitution as a result of the Thirty-third Amendment have now been considered in a large number of determinations and are fully addressed in both a determination issued by a panel consisting of all of the members of this court in B.S. v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESCDET 134, (Unreported, Supreme Court, 6 December 2017) and in a unanimous judgment of a full court delivered by O'Donnell J. in Quinn Insurance Ltd. v. PricewaterhouseCoopers [2017] IESC 73, [2017] 3 I.R. 812. Accordingly, it is unnecessary to revisit the new constitutional architecture for the purpose of this determination.

2 The facts in this matter are set out in detail in the judgment of the High Court (Noonan J.) of 6 November 2017, the judgment of the Court of Appeal of 16 January 2019, and in the application for leave to appeal filed by the applicant and the respondent's notice. The application for leave filed and the respondent's notice are published along with this determination (subject only to any redaction required by law), and in the circumstances, it is sufficient to recount the facts in outline. No aspect of this ruling has precedential value as a matter of law.

Decision

3 The fundamental issue in these proceedings arises by reason that the applicant, having pleaded guilty to a number of road traffic offences (including drunk driving, dangerous driving, and driving without insurance) failed to appear for sentence, and after two adjournments was sentenced in his absence by the imposition of a two-month prison sentence in respect of the charge...