In a 2016 bar‑stool assault case, the Supreme Court upheld a Circuit Court judge's decision to exclude a doctor's certificate as evidence because the doctor had not personally examined the victim. The accused, charged with assault causing harm and assault causing serious harm, was found guilty of the lesser offence and received a suspended jail sentence, while the serious‑harm charge was acquitted. The DPP had sought admission of the certificate under Section 25 of the 1997 Non‑Fatal Offences Act, which requires a certificate signed by a practitioner who examined the injured person. The defence argued the certificate was based on clinical notes from another practitioner. The Supreme Court ruled that the certificate could not be admitted as the practitioner could not certify facts from another's examination, and noted the section's ambiguity and narrow scope. The Court of Appeal had previously ruled the exclusion was incorrect, but the Supreme Court reversed that decision.
Zoltan Almasi, a 49‑year‑old Serbian truck driver, was sentenced to 11 years in prison for the manslaughter of 20‑year‑old Joseph "Joe Joe" Dunne, who died after Almasi struck him on the head with a baseball bat. The Central Criminal Court found that Almasi had intended to cause serious injury, delivering a savage blow that caused near‑instantaneous death. Almasi had previously been convicted of murder in 2014, appealed to the Court of Appeal, and had that conviction quashed by the Supreme Court, leading to a retrial. The final trial ended with a jury disagreement on the murder charge, so the court imposed a manslaughter sentence. Almasi pleaded guilty to manslaughter, and the judge noted mitigating factors such as his lack of prior convictions and his cooperation in prison. The sentence was back‑dated to his 2014 arrest.
Zoltan Almasi, 49, has had his plea to manslaughter accepted by the Director of Public Prosecutions for the 2014 killing of Joseph Dunne. Almasi, who has been in custody for seven years, had previously faced three trials for the same murder, with the first conviction quashed by the Supreme Court and the second and third trials ending in hung juries. At his last trial he pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter. He was remanded in custody until September 3 for a sentence hearing, with reports ordered from his prison governor, chaplain and psychologist.
A 29-year-old man from Castlebar, County Mayo, has been sentenced to fourteen years' imprisonment for the manslaughter of his mother at their home in Derrycrieve, Islandeady, in March 2011. The Central Criminal Court heard that the defendant killed his 46-year-old mother in a frenzied knife attack whilst under the influence of drugs. His original murder conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2019, which found the trial judge's instruction to the jury on intoxication as a partial defence to be inadequate. The Director of Public Prosecutions subsequently accepted a plea to manslaughter on the basis of intoxication. Mr Justice Michael White imposed the sentence on condition that the final two years remain suspended, subject to strict conditions including supervision by the probation service and residence in high-support accommodation upon release. The judge noted the defendant's violent temperament and eight assault convictions against prison staff, emphasising the need for structured community supervision. The unnamed 29-year-old pleaded guilty.
Celyn Eadon, 29, appeared at the Central Criminal Court for a sentencing hearing regarding the manslaughter of his mother, Noreen Kelly. Eadon admitted to her killing and pleaded guilty to manslaughter, a plea accepted by the DPP after the Supreme Court overturned his previous murder conviction. Defence counsel Patrick Gageby SC argued that gross intoxication deprived Eadon of the intent to kill, noting he suffered a brain injury from juvenile drug use. The DPP, represented by Seamus Clarke SC, assessed the case as high culpability but warned that Eadon would face homelessness if released, as probation services could not currently provide suitable accommodation. Mr Justice Michael White remanded Eadon in custody until February 22, when he will be sentenced. The judge indicated the sentence would include a suspended element of community supervision with strict conditions. Eadon has 13 other convictions, mostly for assaults, committed since his initial life sentence for the 2011 killing in Castlebar, Co Mayo.
A man convicted of murdering his mother in County Mayo almost a decade ago will be sentenced for her manslaughter in February following a Supreme Court ruling that overturned his murder conviction. The Central Criminal Court hearing was disrupted when the defendant, now aged 29, shouted abuse at the prosecutor while pathology evidence was being presented. The State accepted his plea to the lesser offence on the basis that intoxication can prevent the formation of the intent required for murder. The defendant was 19 when he fatally stabbed his mother multiple times in their home near Castlebar in March 2011. He had initially pleaded guilty to manslaughter, but a jury found him guilty of murder and he received a life sentence in 2014. The Supreme Court found the trial judge's direction to the jury on intoxication and specific intent was inadequate. Justice Michael White remanded the defendant in custody pending sentencing submissions on 8th February, and ordered the Probation Service to prepare a structure should release be considered.
A man imprisoned for two counts of anal rape against his wife has withdrawn his appeal against his nine-year sentence following guidance from the Court of Appeal regarding recent Supreme Court precedent on marital rape. The 41-year-old, whose identity is protected to safeguard his wife's privacy, was convicted at the Central Criminal Court of the offences committed at their County Mayo home on 18 December 2015. He was acquitted on four additional rape charges relating to earlier occasions in 2015. Before the sentence appeal hearing commenced, Court of Appeal President Justice George Birmingham, sitting with Justices Patrick McCarthy and Isobel Kennedy, drew the appellant's attention to a 2018 Supreme Court judgment. That case concerned a sentence reduction for spousal rape which the Supreme Court subsequently reversed, finding that the lower court had erred by examining the offence in isolation rather than within the broader context of violent and abusive conduct. Following consultation with counsel, the appellant elected to withdraw his appeal, an application the court granted.
Celyn Eadon, aged 29, of Derrycrieve, Islandeady, Castlebar, Co Mayo, pleaded guilty at the Central Criminal Court to the manslaughter of his mother Noreen Kelly on March 9, 2011. Ms Kelly, aged 46, died following a knife attack at their home address. Eadon was originally convicted of her murder in 2014 and sentenced to life imprisonment. However, the Supreme Court quashed his conviction in December 2019, ruling the trial judge's instructions to the jury regarding intoxication and specific intention were inadequate. The court found the jury had not been properly informed that intoxication could constitute a partial defence to murder. The Director of Public Prosecutions accepted Eadon's manslaughter plea. Mr Justice Paul McDermott remanded him in custody pending a sentence hearing scheduled for November 16, 2020.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has declared a damages claim by Mark Nash inadmissible due to delay. Nash, who is serving life sentences for the Grangegorman murders, had complained that his right to a trial within a reasonable time was breached. The Strasbourg Court unanimously held that his complaints were lodged more than six months after the final Irish Supreme Court decision, rendering them inadmissible. Nash was found guilty in 2015 of murdering Sylvia Sheils and Mary Callanan in 1997, a conviction upheld by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. He had previously sought damages in Irish courts for the delay between his initial questioning in 1997 and formal charges in 2009, but the High Court and Supreme Court refused relief. The ECHR noted that the Supreme Court dismissed his damages claim in October 2016, and a subsequent 2017 application to revisit that order did not restart the six-month filing period. The Court stated that allowing such applications to reset the deadline would subvert the purpose of the six-month rule. Consequently, Nash's application for damages regarding pre-trial prosecutorial delay was dismissed. Nash remains serving four life sentences at Midlands Prison, Portlaoise, for the murders of two women in Dublin and two people in Roscommon.
A 48‑year‑old man, Mark Tims, was jailed for seven years after he kicked and stamped his 74‑year‑old father, Anthony 'Tony' Tims, to death in their shared kitchen. The judge, Mr Justice Tony Hunt, noted that the father had been drunk and that the son had been provoked by verbal abuse, but the father's words were not considered a physical provocation. The father had a pre‑existing heart condition and died from injuries sustained when Mark struck him with a mug, then stamped and kicked him repeatedly. Mark had pleaded guilty to manslaughter and not guilty to murder; the jury acquitted him of murder and found him guilty of manslaughter. The sentence was reduced from ten to seven years and six months, with the final six months suspended for two years on the condition of good behaviour and probation cooperation. The case was heard in January 2020 following a two‑week trial.
The Friends of the Irish Environment CLG has lodged an appeal against the High Court's dismissal of its judicial review challenge to the Government's National Mitigation Plan. The NGO seeks to have the appeal leapfrogged directly to the Supreme Court. In September, Mr Justice Michael MacGrath dismissed the proceedings, ruling that the government must be afforded broad discretion in adopting plans under the Climate Act and that the court could not interfere based on the separation of powers. The NGO alleged the plan, published in July 2017, was flawed and failed to specify urgent measures to reduce greenhouse emissions or manage risks such as flooding and ecological destruction. It sought to quash the government's approval of the plan and direct the production of a more robust strategy. The State respondents opposed the action, arguing the National Mitigation Plan was not justiciable and that the NGO was impermissibly advancing a prescribed policy while seeking to impose a positive obligation on the State. The matter is currently at the appeal stage, with the NGO requesting the Supreme Court to hear the case directly rather than through the Court of Appeal.
Ms Justice Leonie Reynolds granted possession orders to Everyday Finance DAC, requiring more than 20 adults and children to vacate three Dublin properties by January 31. The properties, originally purchased by businessman Jerry Beades in 2002 using a €1.7m loan from PTSB, were repossessed following an alleged default. The loans were subsequently acquired by Cheldon Property Finance and later by Everyday Finance. The judge rejected residents' claims of valid leases, noting no such leases were sanctioned by lenders. She refused an application by residents Tomasz and Marta Skorupinska to adjourn the matter for legal representation, stating they had previously retained solicitors and that their recent sworn statements appeared assisted. The judge emphasized that possession orders had been before the courts since 2012 and that delays were no longer acceptable. Although Mr Beades has appeals before the Court of Appeal regarding the possession orders, the current ruling mandates the residents' departure. Everyday Finance, represented by Mr Stephen Byrne BL, alleged the occupants were present without valid leases and had obstructed property inspections. The judge noted that previous offers to allow rent-free occupancy were rejected by the residents.
A defamation action brought by London-based Nigerian businesswoman Rosala Uvbi Mku-Atu against Ester Esabod Aboderin was adjourned to October following a violent incident at the Four Courts. Ms Uvbi Mku-Atu alleges that Ms Aboderin, of Leixlip, Co Kildare, published defamatory and threatening social media posts regarding her businesses and reputation. During the hearing before Ms Justice Leonie Reynolds, counsel for the defendant stated that Ms Aboderin had been seriously assaulted by unknown parties outside the court, sustaining cuts and bruises, and that a complaint had been made to the Gardaí. Counsel for the plaintiff, who was not present, stated his client had no knowledge of the individuals involved and did not condone the violence. The judge noted that the Gardaí were investigating the incident and agreed to adjourn the case, with existing interim orders remaining in place until October. These orders, secured previously, require the defendant to remove the alleged comments and prohibit their reporting under Section 33 of the Defamation Act. The court heard that the defendant had removed the comments from platforms under her control, though steps were being taken to address posts on other platforms. The matter was adjourned and not concluded.
In a 2019 case, lawyers for a man charged with assault argued that the prosecution must prove the alleged victim did not consent to the incident. The defence cited a Supreme Court decision involving a prisoner who claimed another prisoner asked to be assaulted to secure transfer to an open prison. The defendant, Gerard Brown, alleged that former Garda Stephen Cooper instructed him to feign an attack, saying "Don't hold back" and "Just make sure there is blood," and promised €1,000 and sensitive information. After the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against conviction, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a further appeal, focusing on whether the offence of section 3 assault requires proof of absence of consent. The Court of Appeal had ruled that consent could not be a defence on public policy grounds. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that absence of consent is not a necessary ingredient in a section 3 assault.
Daniel O'Connell, 65, who lives in Clare and Limerick, is appealing to the Supreme Court over his extradition to the UK for failing to pay a confiscation order of almost £13 million. He has argued that extradition would breach his rights under the European Convention of Human Rights and that, as an indigent person, he should not be sent to serve a penalty that a wealthy person would not have to serve. Justice Aileen Donnelly rejected all of his arguments and ordered his extradition, but she put a stay on the order pending a Supreme Court application. O'Connell was convicted in 2000 of five VAT‑evasion offences, jailed for eight years, released on licence in 2003, and was later subject to a confiscation order of almost £6 million. He has paid £354,407.41, leaving a balance of nearly £6 million plus interest.
The State will ask the Supreme Court to hear an appeal against a High Court ruling that found Graham Dwyer, a Cork-born architect, was entitled to a declaration that Section 6.1(a) of the 2011 Communications (Retention of Data) Act was inconsistent with EU law. The High Court judge, Mr Justice Tony O'Connor, made a single declaration in Dwyer's favour and placed a stay on it until the first directions hearing of the proposed appeal. The stay will be reviewed by the Supreme Court. The State also seeks a recommendation that Dwyer's legal costs be paid by the State. Dwyer, who denies murdering childcare worker Elaine O'Hara, argues that data from his work phone, used at his 2015 trial, was unlawfully retained and accessed under the 2011 Act, which he claims is inconsistent with EU and European Convention rights. The State contends the data retention regime is essential for serious crime investigations.
Anthony McDonnell, a 27‑year‑old Dublin man, was sentenced to six years' imprisonment for arson after a Supreme Court‑ordered retrial overturned his 2014 acquittal. The original trial had acquitted him because the prosecution failed to produce evidence of how the CCTV system operated, making the footage inadmissible, and because alleged admissions during Garda interviews were ruled inadmissible under the right‑to‑silence rules. The Supreme Court held that CCTV footage was real evidence and that Gardaí could question McDonnell about his presence at the crime scene. McDonnell pleaded guilty to setting fire to a car that caused €77,000 of damage to an apartment block and destroyed two vehicles. Judge Melanie Greally imposed a six‑year sentence, suspending the final two and a half years, and ordered 18 months of probation supervision and mandatory training.
Anthony McDonnell, 26, pleaded guilty to arson after the Supreme Court overturned his 2014 acquittal. He set fire to a car in the car park of an apartment block, causing about €77,000 in building damage and destroying two cars. The original trial judge, Sarah Berkeley, had acquitted him because CCTV footage was deemed inadmissible and alleged admissions during Garda interviews were excluded. The Supreme Court ruled that CCTV footage is real evidence and that Gardaí could question McDonnell, ordering a retrial. McDonnell pleaded guilty at the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court. He later committed a robbery in May 2017 and was sentenced to four years and six months in February 2018. The court adjourned the case to July and ordered a report from the prison governor. The case is referred to as the AMcD case.
Businessman Denis O'Brien is seeking findings that would be 'entirely destructive of' and 'effectively undermine' parliamentary speech, the Supreme Court has heard. Maurice Collins SC, representing the State, stated that O'Brien's proceedings arise from statements made by TDs Pease Doherty and Catherine Murphy regarding his banking affairs, which could indirectly substitute the courts for the Dail as the arbiter of parliamentary speech. O'Brien's legal team rejected these claims. Collins argued that the proceedings concern how the Dail Committee on Procedure and Privilege (CPP) handled O'Brien's complaint about the TDs' statements in May-June 2015, which the CPP dismissed. O'Brien has challenged this decision in judicial review. Collins contended that the CPP, as an agent of the Oireachtas, is protected under Article 15 of the Irish Constitution, which allows free speech in the Oireachtas, and that its decisions are non-justiciable. He referenced the Supreme Court's 2014 judgment in favor of a Seanad committee. Michael Collins SC for the CPP stated that any court review of the committee's decisions would render its protections under Article 15 'wholly illusionary.' Eileen Barrington SC for O'Brien argued that the CPP failed to follow its own rules and that the courts should intervene to protect the rights of a non-member of the Oireachtas. O'Brien claims the TDs did not act in good faith when making their statements. In 2016, Ms Justice Una Ni Raifeartaigh dismissed O'Brien's action, citing separation of powers and the potential chilling effect on parliamentary speech. The appeal focuses on the CPP's finding that the TDs did not breach standing orders. Following submissions on Tuesday evening, the seven-judge Supreme Court reserved its decision, with Chief Justice Frank Clarke noting it may take time before a judgment is delivered.
The Pro Life Campaign has requested to be joined as an amicus curiae in the Supreme Court appeal that will consider the extent of the unborn's constitutional rights. The campaign, citing concerns over recent developments, is not a formal party but seeks to assist the court on legal matters. Chief Justice Frank Clarke granted the campaign short notice to apply and will consider the request at a case‑management hearing on Tuesday. The appeal, scheduled for February 21, will be heard by a seven‑judge panel and will examine whether the unborn has constitutional rights beyond the right to life in Article 40.3.3 and whether it is a "child" under Article 42A. The High Court's 2016 ruling, which the appeal challenges, held that the unborn has such rights and that the State must protect them. The Supreme Court's decision could influence the wording of the referendum on repealing the Eighth Amendment.
Fred Forsey Jnr, a former Fine Gael town councillor aged 46, was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act for receiving €80,000 in three payments from a property developer in 2006. The developer had an interest in a planning permission for land at Ballygagin, Co Waterford. Forsey was accused of attempting to persuade Waterford County Council officials and councillors to grant permission, of trying to alter the zoning of the land in the Waterford Co Development Plan, and of seeking to bring the lands into the control of Dungarvan UDC, where he had previously served. He denied the charges, claiming the money were loans. In 2012 a jury at Waterford Circuit Criminal Court found him guilty and sentenced him to six years' imprisonment, with the final two years suspended. In 2016 the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal.
Fred Forsey Jnr, a former Fine Gael councillor aged 46, was convicted of receiving three corrupt payments totalling €80,000 from a property developer in 2006. The payments were alleged to have been made to influence Waterford County Council officials and councillors to grant planning permission for a development at Ballygagin, and to alter the zoning of the land in the Waterford County Development Plan. Forsey also allegedly sought to bring the land under the control of the Dungarvan Urban Development Committee, of which he was a member. He was found guilty by a jury at the Waterford Circuit Criminal Court and sentenced to six years' imprisonment, with the final two years suspended by Judge Gerard Griffin on 27 June 2012. In July 2016 the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal against conviction. In 2017 his lawyers applied for a legal‑aid certificate to bring a Supreme Court appeal. Mr Justice George Birmingham granted the certificate. Fred Forsey Jnr pleaded not guilty.
In July 2016, Denis Casey and John Bowe were convicted by a jury at the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court for conspiring to mislead investors about Anglo Irish Bank's value between March and September 2008. Casey, 57, former chief executive of Irish Life and Permanent, received a sentence of two years and nine months, while Bowe, 53, former head of capital markets at Anglo Irish Bank, was sentenced to two years. The Court of Appeal upheld these convictions in a decision issued last month. Casey's counsel, Michael O'Higgins SC, announced that the appeal of the sentence would not proceed. Instead, O'Higgins requested a hearing before a full three‑judge Supreme Court panel to address a technical point in the Court of Appeal's 138‑page judgment, arguing that the Supreme Court might lack jurisdiction to consider the issue if it was not included in the appellate judgment. The matter was scheduled for a hearing on Thursday.
In July 2017, the Charleton Tribunal heard that HSE psychologist Laura Brophy had mistakenly included severe sexual abuse allegations in a 2013 report about Sgt Maurice McCabe, a garda whistle‑blower. The erroneous report mixed details from an unrelated investigation involving another garda's daughter, Ms D, and a woman named Ms Y, leading to allegations of "digital penetration" that were not applicable to McCabe. Brophy admitted the error, stating she had corrected it and changed her work practices to prevent recurrence. She also denied ever considering deliberate defamation of McCabe, describing such an act as catastrophic. The tribunal noted that while the incorrect allegations were amended, some erroneous claims, including a threat to kill Ms D's father, remained on garda records. The hearing also discussed procedural changes to child‑abuse reporting to avoid future mistakes. The tribunal resumed the next day.
Vincent O'Donoghue, a businessman, has formally applied to the Supreme Court to appeal the Court of Appeal's dismissal of his action against the sale of government shares in AIB bank. He argues that the proposed sale is contrary to the common good, violates Article 6 of the Constitution, and is unlawful, claiming the judiciary must intervene to prevent the government from acting unlawfully. The High Court had dismissed his action as frivolous, vexatious and bound to fail, and had also denied his injunction to stop the sale pending the outcome of his case. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision. O'Donoghue contends the Appeal Court erred by labeling his action a non‑justiciable political controversy. The Supreme Court will issue a written decision on whether to allow his appeal.
The Minister for Justice has sought to re‑open an extradition case for Ian Bailey, a 60‑year‑old former resident of Schull, who was denied surrender to France in 2012 by a Supreme Court panel. Lawyers for Bailey argue that the Supreme Court's 2012 decision, based on section 44 of the European Arrest Warrant Act, creates an absolute jurisdictional bar to his extradition for alleged voluntary homicide of Sophie Tuscan du Plantier, who died in 1996 outside her holiday home. Bailey denies any involvement and claims Gardaí attempted to frame him. His counsel, Garrett Simons SC, contends the Minister's new application is an abuse of process, undermining the Supreme Court's judgment and the sovereignty of Irish courts. The Minister's counsel, Robert Barron SC, maintains that the Minister has no power to refuse a warrant and will continue to submit to the High Court. The case remains pending before Mr Justice Tony Hunt.
The Supreme Court has scheduled an appeal for May 31st regarding the deportation of an unnamed man in his 50s, who has alleged links to Islamic terrorism. The appeal challenges a High Court decision by Mr Justice Richard Humphreys, who upheld the Minister for Justice's deportation order and refused leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The appellant claims deportation would breach Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, alleging risks of torture and inhuman treatment due to his political views, while denying terrorism involvement. The State asserts his activities and associates are a serious security concern, alleging he raised money for jihadists. The court noted he was convicted and jailed in France for several years for terrorist offences. Additionally, he served a prison sentence in Ireland after being convicted of attempting to travel using forged documents. The Supreme Court granted permission to hear the case, citing points of general public importance, with the hearing set to proceed before Mr Justice Donal O'Donnell.
Gary Davis, a 28‑year‑old Wicklow resident, is alleged to have been an administrator of the Silk Road website, which sold illicit drugs and hacking software. U.S. authorities seek his extradition on charges of conspiracy to distribute narcotics, conspiracy to commit computer hacking and conspiracy to commit money laundering, with a potential life sentence if convicted. The High Court ordered his extradition in August, and the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal last week, ruling the appeal was not based on a point of law. Davis has been in custody since his arrest in January 2014, having been on bail for three years. He has argued that extradition would expose him to an inhumane environment, citing his Asperger's Syndrome, depression and anxiety, and the lack of suitable care in U.S. prisons. The Court of Appeal confirmed a 15‑day stay on his surrender, but the appeal was ultimately rejected, leaving the extradition order in place.
A man, whose identity is withheld, is appealing to the Supreme Court after the Court of Appeal dismissed his attempts to avoid prosecution on the grounds that Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 is incompatible with the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. He faces seven counts of gross indecency for alleged acts with a teenage boy between 1978 and 1980, including buggery, oral sex and forced masturbation. The High Court refused his reliefs, and the Court of Appeal found he lacked standing to argue the statute's incompatibility, awarding costs to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney General. The Court of Appeal granted an eight‑week stay on the costs order, pending the Supreme Court's decision on whether the case is appropriate for appeal. The case highlights the continued legal debate over the 1885 Act's relevance to contemporary society.
Kevin Mulcahy, a former GP aged 57 from Cork, was convicted of indecently assaulting a 15‑year‑old patient in 1989. After a retrial at Cork Circuit Criminal Court, he was found guilty following 39 minutes of deliberation and sentenced to two years' imprisonment by Judge Seán Ó Donnabháin on 25 November 2015. His appeal against conviction was dismissed in October, and he was re‑sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment following a sentence appeal. During case‑management procedures in the Court of Appeal, Justice George Birmingham directed that a legal‑aid certificate be issued to cover the hearing of a Supreme Court appeal. Justice John Edwards, who had previously ruled on Mulcahy's unsuccessful appeal, noted that Mulcahy had regularly visited the complainant's home to treat her mother, and that during one visit he allegedly touched the patient's vagina. Mulcahy was arrested and interviewed in 2011 on the complaint of indecent assault. Kevin Mulcahy pleaded not guilty.
A jury at the Central Criminal Court has begun deliberating in the trial of a man accused of raping his former partner from Longford following her alleged kidnapping. Justice Carmel Stewart charged the jury on the legal test for consent, directing them that an honest but unreasonable belief in consent may constitute a defence to rape, provided such belief was genuinely held and not based on self-deceit. The judge instructed the jury to consider whether any claimed belief in consent could have been genuinely held given the circumstances the woman described. The accused has pleaded not guilty to rape, false imprisonment, and production of an article in November 2015, and to three counts of assault causing harm between 2011 and 2015. He faces additional allegations of false imprisonment of the woman and their children in unsuitable accommodation, and various assaults throughout their relationship. Two charges have been withdrawn.
In December 2016 the Irish Court of Appeal dismissed Eric Eoin Marques' appeals against an extradition order and a legal challenge to the Director of Public Prosecutions' decision not to prosecute him in Ireland. Marques, a 30‑year‑old Dublin resident, is alleged by the FBI to run an anonymous hosting site, Freedom Hosting, that distributed child pornography. He has been in custody since August 2013. The High Court had ordered his surrender to U.S. authorities, but the Court of Appeal stayed the order pending a Supreme Court appeal. The court noted that if the Supreme Court grants leave to appeal, surrender will be delayed until that appeal is decided; if leave is refused, surrender will then occur. The court also confirmed that the DPP's decision not to prosecute was not reviewable and that Marques had no statutory right to reasons for that decision. The court rejected Marques' claim that a U.S. The unnamed 30-year-old was convicted.
Joe O'Reilly, who was convicted in 2007 of murdering his wife and sentenced to life imprisonment, has been granted legal aid to pursue an appeal to the Supreme Court. The legal aid certificate was sought by his counsel, Ronan Munro BL, after a 2012 application to have his conviction declared a miscarriage of justice was dismissed as an "abuse of process" by the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court has no automatic right of appeal in such cases, and the court has indicated that applications for legal aid should be made to the Court of Appeal. Mr Justice Birmingham, sitting with Mr Justice Seán Ryan and Mr Justice John Edwards, dismissed O'Reilly's appeal, stating that the arguments he raised were an "unacceptable strategy" because they were raised after the trial and after his earlier appeal. O'Reilly's application under section 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act was therefore not allowed to proceed to full hearing.
A five-judge Supreme Court heard an application by convicted serial killer Mark Nash seeking damages over delays in his prosecution for murders in Dublin. Nash is serving a life sentence following his conviction for the 1997 killings of two women at sheltered housing in Grangegorman, a conviction now under appeal. He had previously been convicted of murders in Ballintober, County Roscommon in 1997. Nash's legal team argued he was treated as a suspect for twelve years before being charged in 2009, ten years after the Director of Public Prosecutions directed that charges be brought. Counsel contended the delay breached Nash's constitutional and human rights to a trial conducted with due expedition. The application also raised concerns regarding forensic evidence handling at the laboratory. The Director of Public Prosecutions opposed the application, arguing the decision to charge Nash was appropriately timed. The Chief Justice indicated the court would reserve its decision on the matter.
Breifne O'Brien, 54, was jailed for inducing others to invest millions in bogus property deals. He pleaded guilty to 14 counts of deception or theft, amounting to about €8.5 million between 2003 and 2008, and was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment by Judge Patricia Ryan on 8 October 2014. His appeal against the sentence was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in December, which upheld the seven‑year term as appropriate. During case‑management proceedings today, his counsel, Barry Murphy BL, sought legal aid to apply to the Supreme Court for leave to appeal the unsuccessful appeal. The Supreme Court application was lodged on 25 May 2016. The case is scheduled for mention on 22 July, when a panel of three judges will hear the matter. No further procedural developments were reported.
Joe O'Reilly is seeking Supreme Court permission to appeal the Court of Appeal's dismissal of his miscarriage‑of‑justice application. In July 2007, a Central Criminal Court jury convicted him of murdering his wife, Rachel, and sentenced him to life imprisonment. O'Reilly's earlier appeal in 2009 failed, and a 2012 attempt to quash the conviction on the basis of unlawful detention was also dismissed. In November 2012 he obtained legal aid to pursue a miscarriage‑of‑justice claim under Section 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but the Court of Appeal ruled it an abuse of process, citing no new facts. The Court of Appeal, presided over by Justices Birmingham, Ryan and Edwards, dismissed the application, noting that the alleged evidence mishap had occurred during the original trial and that O'Reilly had been fully informed at the time.
The Supreme Court expressed deep sorrow at the death of Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman, a Senior Ordinary Member. He had a distinguished 26‑year career as a barrister, known for his extensive practice and skill in cross‑examination, before being appointed directly to the Supreme Court in 2000. During his tenure he contributed significantly to Irish jurisprudence, authoring majority opinions and sharp dissents, notably in DPP v. Gormley and DPP v. White, where he emphasized the protection of persons and dignity. Hardiman was also a historian and scholar, lecturing on topics such as the Trial of Robert Emmet, the 1916 Rising, and James Joyce. The Court noted his eloquence, depth of knowledge, humour, and friendship, and offered condolences to his wife, Judge Yvonne Murphy, and sons Eoin, Hugh, and Daniel. The statement serves as a brief tribute to his profound contribution to Irish public life.
In 2016 the Supreme Court ruled that a public body cannot be liable for negligence when the legislation does not create a duty of care towards the claimant, nor when liability is based on the policy pursued unless the claimant has successfully challenged that policy in judicial review. The case involved Cromane Seafoods Ltd and O'Sullivan McCarthy Mussel Developments Ltd, companies sharing directors, whose mussel cultivation in Castlemaine Harbour was halted after the harbour was designated a Special Area of Conservation under the Habitats Directive. Cromane and O'Sullivan sued the Minister for Agriculture for negligence and breach of legitimate expectation, claiming loss of income and profit. The High Court found the Minister negligent and awarded damages, but the Supreme Court allowed the Minister's appeal, holding that no duty of care arose under the Sea‑Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006 or the Habitats Directive.
Tom "Slab" Murphy, born August 1949 in Ballybinaby, Co. Louth, is alleged to have been a former Chief of Staff of the Provisional IRA and to have run a cross‑border smuggling operation from his family farm that straddled the Republic‑Northern Ireland border. Court documents and affidavits from the Criminal Assets Bureau, Gardaí, customs and PSNI describe how the farm, which Murphy inherited in 1968, was used to smuggle pigs, cattle, fuel and oil between the two jurisdictions. The operation involved large storage tanks, underground tanks, and concealed dispensing machines that allowed fuel to be moved across the border. Affidavits also report the discovery of €256,245 and £111,185 in cash and cheques during a 2006 raid. Murphy has pursued libel actions against the Sunday Times, but the court found against him in both 1990 and 1998 trials. The case highlights the alleged scale of the smuggling enterprise and the legal challenges faced by authorities.
The Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal in McDonagh v Sunday World, a significant defamation case concerning the limits of jury verdicts and media freedom. The proceedings arose from a 1999 Sunday World article alleging that McDonagh was a drug dealer, loan shark, tax evader and criminal. At trial, a jury rejected the drug dealing and loan sharking claims but found the tax evasion and criminality allegations proven, awarding damages of €900,000. The Court of Appeal subsequently overturned the verdict, holding that the evidence on drug dealing was overwhelming and that the newspaper possessed a constitutional right to publish such material which could not be compromised by a jury finding. The Supreme Court has identified five issues of general public importance for determination, including whether appellate courts may reverse jury verdicts on defamation despite strong evidence supporting the defendant's case, and whether media constitutional rights override jury verdicts. The case raises fundamental questions about the intersection of jury findings, judicial review, and press freedom under Irish constitutional law.
In Leopardstown Club v Templeville Developments, the Supreme Court granted Leopardstown leave to appeal a Court of Appeal decision that allegedly overturned the High Court trial judge's findings of fact. The Supreme Court held that it is a matter of genuine public interest to allow an appeal where the Court of Appeal may have misapplied the rule from Hay v O'Grady concerning the role of an appellate court. The Court reiterated that an appellate court does not have the same opportunity to see and hear witnesses as the trial judge, and that if the trial judge's findings are supported by credible evidence, the appellate court is bound by those findings. The Court also granted leave to appeal on the interpretation of s 86 of the Land & Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 and the Court of Appeal's application of the rule from Gahan v Boland regarding constructive notice as a defence against a claim of misrepresentation.
This report details seven extraordinary exonerations in Irish courts, highlighting cases where the justice system failed accused individuals. Among the validated subjects is Nora Wall, a former nun convicted in 1999 of rape, a charge she did not plead to but was found guilty of. She became the first woman convicted of rape in the State's history and the first to receive a life sentence for the crime, handed down by Mr Justice Paul Carney. However, her sentence was quashed after a prosecution witness admitted fabricating evidence, and in December 2005, the Court of Criminal Appeal declared her conviction a miscarriage of justice. Another subject, Michael Hannon, was convicted in 1999 of sexually assaulting a ten-year-old girl, Una Hardester, and assaulted Hannon's father. Hannon received a suspended prison sentence of four years. In 2009, the Court of Criminal Appeal declared his conviction a miscarriage of justice after Hardester admitted her allegations were fabricated for revenge following a land dispute. Christy Lynch, convicted of the murder of Vera Cooney in 1976, was also exonerated. Lynch claimed his confession was extracted under duress by the Garda murder squad. Although the Court of Criminal Appeal initially ordered a retrial, the Supreme Court ultimately set Lynch free, declaring him an innocent man based on the inadmissibility of his coerced statement. These cases underscore significant failures in the Irish legal process.
In 2016 the Supreme Court allowed Blanchfield's appeal against a High Court award of €75,000 to Reynolds. The High Court had awarded the sum on a quantum meruit basis, but neither Blanchfield nor Reynolds had pleaded for such relief, and there was insufficient evidence to value the services. Reynolds had sought €200,000 for services related to a failed joint‑venture property development in France. The High Court judge, after a full hearing, found no express agreement for payment and, despite Blanchfield's objections, awarded €75,000. Blanchfield appealed, arguing that the trial judge had introduced a quantum meruit issue not pleaded by either side. The Supreme Court held that parties may not raise materially different claims than those pleaded, and reversed the High Court order. The case remains at the appellate level.
In 2016 the Supreme Court granted the State permission to appeal the Court of Appeal's decision in Chinguara & Others v Minister for Justice and Equality. The case concerned a non‑national family who had been refused refugee status in 2008 and subsidiary protection in 2011, after which the Minister issued deportation orders. The High Court had found no grounds for judicial review and the family had avoided deportation by changing address. In 2015 they sought an undertaking that they would not be deported while their appeal was pending; the State refused, so they applied to the Court of Appeal for an injunction. The Court of Appeal held that the parents' case was arguable but that the children, innocent of their parents' deception, could not be subjected to deportation. It granted an injunction against deportation for both parents and children.
In 2015, approximately 350 people were serving life sentences in Irish prisons, with life terms averaging around 18 years. However, a select number of prisoners have served substantially longer. John Shaw and Geoffrey Evans, convicted in 1978 of abducting, raping and murdering two women in 1976 and 1977, received life sentences. Evans died in 2012 after 34 years in custody. Shaw remains imprisoned after nearly 38 years. Jimmy Ennis, now aged 84, is Ireland's longest-serving prisoner, having been incarcerated over five decades for a 1964 murder in County Cork. Noel Callan from Castleblayney, County Monaghan, and Michael McHugh were sentenced to death in 1985 for the killing of Sergeant Patrick Morrissey near Tallanstown, County Louth. Their sentences were commuted to 40 years imprisonment and both were released in 2015 after 30 years. Colm O'Shea and Patrick McCann received death sentences in 1980 for murdering two gardaí during a bank robbery in Ballaghedereen, County Roscommon, later commuted to 40 years. Both were released in 2013 after serving 33 years.
The article discusses Ireland's strict ban on courtroom broadcasting, contrasting it with televised trials in South Africa and the UK. It notes that while no law prohibits cameras, the practice is a de facto policy, and requests for recording or live broadcast are routinely rejected. Recent developments in the UK, where live broadcasts from the Court of Criminal Appeal began in 2013, and Scotland's long‑standing use of cameras since 1992, are cited as potential models. The article mentions a proposed advisory committee and pilot project in Ireland, possibly starting in the Supreme Court or the new Court of Criminal Appeal. It highlights the benefits of open justice and the protection of witnesses, noting that filming would likely be limited to judges and lawyers. The piece concludes that any change would require a broader policy shift following a review.
In 2011, Ms Martha McEnery was convicted of assault by the Waterford Circuit Court and sentenced to four months imprisonment, suspended for six months. The Court of Criminal Appeal upheld the conviction. Despite a clean disciplinary record and prior commendations, the Garda Commissioner served her with notice of intent to summarily dismiss her under Regulation 39 of the Garda Síochána (Discipline) Regulations 2007, citing her unfitness for retention. McEnery filed judicial review proceedings, arguing that the Circuit Court conviction did not preclude the Commissioner from conducting his own inquiry. The High Court dismissed her application, holding that the courts should not decide what behaviour warrants dismissal; that decision lies with the Commissioner and Minister. McEnery appealed to the Court of Appeal, which reversed the High Court, holding that Regulation 39 requires both material facts and a breach of discipline to merit dismissal.
In November 2015 the Supreme Court overturned a 2013 High Court ruling that had allowed the Industrial Development Authority (IDA) to compulsorily acquire 72 acres of Thomas Reid's farm and family home in Blakestown, Co. Kildare. Reid, aged 53, had sued the IDA and the State, arguing that the compulsory purchase order (CPO) issued on 14 November 2012 was beyond the powers granted to the IDA under section 16 of the 1986 Industrial Development Act. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision by five judges, held that the IDA had no authority to acquire land not immediately required for industrial use and that the CPO was ultra vires. The Court also found the IDA's decision to be objectively biased, as the IDA alone made the decision from start to finish. The ruling quashed the CPO and set aside the IDA's decision to acquire the land. All remaining matters, including costs, will be dealt with later.
In the Commercial Court, an application by Gayle Dunne and Dunne's Irish was adjourned before Ms Justice Caroline Costello, with proceedings set to resume later next month. Chris Lehane, the official administering the Irish bankruptcy of Sean Dunne, brought the action alleging invalid transfers of assets to Mrs. Dunne. These alleged transfers include the Lagoon Beach Hotel in South Africa, valued at over €18m, and interests in properties in Dublin and County Wicklow. Mr. Lehane claims the 2005 and 2008 agreements have no legal status. Mrs. Dunne, who resides in Greenwich, Connecticut, seeks to have the Irish proceedings discontinued, arguing they are oppressive and that the transfers are already subject to more advanced US bankruptcy proceedings. She requested permission to cross-examine Milton Berger, the lawyer for US Bankruptcy Trustee Richard Coan, who provided sworn statements on US law. Counsel for Mrs. Dunne, Mr. Alan Doherty SC, submitted that the US courts are better placed to determine the matter given the number of affected parties. The application was opposed by Mr. Lehane's representatives. The court heard that Mrs. Dunne claims the transfers were compensation for starting a family and her career sacrifices. The matter remains pending and was not concluded at this hearing.
The Court of Appeal has referred Brian Rattigan's appeal against his murder conviction to the Supreme Court, citing a point of exceptional public interest. Rattigan, of Drimnagh, Dublin, was found guilty in 2009 by a majority jury of stabbing Declan Gavin (21) outside Abrakebabra in Crumlin Shopping Centre on August 25, 2001, and was sentenced to life imprisonment. His initial appeal was dismissed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in 2013. The current referral stems from an application under Section 29 of the 1924 Courts of Justice Act, focusing on whether Section 16 of the 2006 Criminal Justice Act, which modified hearsay rules, applies retrospectively to statements made before the Act came into force. Rattigan's legal team argued that applying this provision retrospectively was unfair and breached constitutional rights, contending that a speedy prosecution would have resulted in a trial prior to the 2006 legislation. The State opposed the referral, arguing the issue was unlikely to recur. The Court of Appeal, comprising Justices O'Donnell, Moriarty, and White, determined that the argument raised underlying issues regarding changes to criminal procedure and evidence, describing it as an issue of enduring importance. While other points raised on Rattigan's behalf did not merit referral, the Supreme Court will now consider the retrospective application of the hearsay exception. Rattigan was not present in court for the ruling.