The Supreme Court has reversed a High Court order declaring unconstitutional a law requiring people with information about certain serious crimes to disclose it to gardaí. The court held that section 9(1)(b) of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 was capable of clear interpretation and did not violate the constitutional right to silence.
The appeal arose from a charge against Michael Sweeney of failing to disclose information that might assist in securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of another person for the 2007 killing of Thomas Ward in Sligo. Sweeney was returned for trial on the charge in January 2014. He was not charged with Ward’s murder.
The High Court had ruled in November 2017 that the provision was unconstitutional, finding that it infringed the right to silence and was impermissibly vague. The State appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which heard the case without evidence being called by either side.
Delivering the judgment, Mr Justice Peter Charleton said the case had been brought without a proper account of the circumstances behind the charge or the evidence the prosecution proposed to rely on. The judgment said the agreed facts showed that Sweeney made no incriminating statement and offered no assistance to authorities about the murder. The full prosecution case was not before either court.
The court said the prosecution must prove that a serious offence was committed by someone other than the accused; that the accused had information materially assisting the authorities and knew or believed it might assist; that the information was not disclosed; and that there was no reasonable excuse for not disclosing it. The prosecution bears the burden of proving the absence of a reasonable excuse.
The judgment said the provision applies to witnesses or others with relevant information, not to people required to reveal their own participation in a crime. A person has a reasonable excuse where disclosure would genuinely risk self-incrimination. The court also said the charge was not simply one of remaining silent during police questioning.
The Supreme Court concluded that the offence, as it related to information about another person’s alleged commission of murder, was not impermissibly vague and did not undermine the right to silence. It ordered that the High Court decision be reversed. The ruling addressed the constitutional challenge; it did not determine Sweeney’s guilt or the evidence at any trial.