The Supreme Court ruled that A.’s conviction and sentence remained lawful after it later declared unconstitutional the statutory provision under which he had been convicted. It allowed the Governor of Arbour Hill Prison’s appeal, set aside the High Court’s release order and ordered A.’s re-arrest to serve the remainder of his sentence.
A. had pleaded guilty to unlawful carnal knowledge of a girl under the age of consent. The Dublin Circuit Court convicted him on 15 June 2004 and sentenced him on 24 November 2004 to three years’ imprisonment, backdated to 8 November 2004.
In May 2006, the Supreme Court ruled in a separate case, C.C. v Ireland, that section 1(1) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1935 was inconsistent with the Constitution. A. then applied to the High Court for release, arguing that his detention was unlawful because the law supporting his conviction had been declared unconstitutional. The High Court ordered his release on 30 May 2006. The prison governor appealed.
The Supreme Court heard the appeal on 2 June 2006 and then allowed it, with its reasons delivered later by Chief Justice Murray. The court rejected A.’s argument that declaring the provision unconstitutional meant his earlier conviction was automatically void. It held that a later constitutional ruling does not, by itself, set aside judicial decisions that were already final.
The court said that, in a criminal prosecution where the State relied in good faith on a statute then in force, a final decision generally remains lawful if the accused did not challenge the prosecution or the statute before the case became final. It left open an exception where the basis for the constitutional ruling, or an extreme feature of an individual case, raises fundamental unfairness amounting to a denial of justice. The court found no such exception in A.’s case.
The ruling concerned the effect of the later constitutional decision on a final conviction. It did not reverse the separate ruling that the 1935 provision was inconsistent with the Constitution. The Supreme Court said its decision meant A.’s detention remained lawful and that he was to be re-arrested to complete his sentence.