The Supreme Court dismissed Peadar Ó Maicín’s appeal seeking a jury able to understand Irish and English without translation. In a judgment delivered on 27 February 2014, Clarke J. concluded that the requested jury could not be empanelled under current conditions without excluding a significant number of otherwise qualified people from jury service.
The appeal arose from Mr Ó Maicín’s application in the Circuit Court for a jury able to follow evidence in Irish without translation. The High Court rejected his claim in Ó Maicín v Eire & ors [2010] IEHC 179, and he appealed that decision. The alleged offence was said to have occurred in the Gaeltacht and to involve Irish speakers, but Clarke J. noted that the detailed factual background was set out in another judgment in the appeal.
Clarke J. said the Constitution gives a person a right to conduct official business fully in Irish, while describing that right as non-absolute. It must be balanced against other people’s language rights and the constitutional requirement that juries in non-minor cases be broadly representative and reflect a fair cross-section of the community.
The judge considered the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in MacCárthaigh, which had rejected a request for a jury able to understand Irish without an interpreter. Clarke J. found no material evidence that Irish-language competence across the country had changed since that ruling. He also considered evidence about Irish use in Gaeltacht areas: roughly two-thirds of the wider area’s community reportedly spoke Irish daily, with higher figures in some smaller areas. The evidence did not establish how many people could follow all aspects of a criminal trial in Irish without assistance.
Clarke J. reasoned that a jury area would need to be sufficiently large to remain representative and avoid extensive exclusions linked to the case. Even a Gaeltacht-based area would likely include many people unable to follow a trial entirely in Irish without translation. Excluding that significant group, he concluded, would make the resulting jury unrepresentative. He said circumstances could change in future, but that the evidence did not establish that the point had been reached.
The ruling concerns the jury Ó Maicín sought; it does not hold that he had no right to conduct his case in Irish. Clarke J. said the trial judge was correct and that the appeal should be dismissed.