The High Court has refused a man’s application for damages arising from a conviction under a law later found unconstitutional, holding that his criminal case had concluded before that ruling and did not qualify for an exception to the general rule against reopening finalised proceedings.
In a judgment delivered on 5 June 2024, Ms Justice M. Gearty said the plaintiff’s claim depended on a section of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1935 that was struck down by the High Court in McInerney v DPP in April 2014. The plaintiff had been convicted in 2010 of three offences arising from an incident at the Garda Boat Club premises in Islandbridge: offending modesty, threatening or insulting behaviour in a public place, and obstructing a peace officer. His convictions were affirmed on appeal in 2011.
After his challenge to those convictions failed, the case was listed again in the Circuit Court in February 2014. The convictions were overturned by consent, without evidence being heard. Justice Gearty said the legal basis for relisting the case was unclear, but accepted that the appeal concluded on 19 February 2014, before the McInerney judgment.
The plaintiff argued that the later finding of unconstitutionality meant the offending-modesty offence had been invalid from the outset. He said he had maintained his innocence, had not pleaded guilty, and had lost employment as a result of the convictions. He also argued that the conviction under the 1935 Act affected the other charges.
The judge said the Supreme Court’s general rule was that criminal or civil proceedings based on a law later found unconstitutional could not normally be reopened once finally determined. Although an exception might be possible in an individual case, she found the plaintiff had not established one. He had not challenged the 1935 Act during his original proceedings, and two other offences were unaffected by the later ruling. The court found no basis to treat the offending-modesty charge as invalidating those convictions.
The judgment also records that the plaintiff’s convictions were ultimately overturned in 2014 and that he had no criminal record in respect of them. His argument that an unpaid €500 fine meant the case remained unresolved was rejected: the judge said the successful appeal ended the case, and no party appealed that order.
The court rejected the plaintiff’s reliance on Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, finding that the argument had not been supported by sufficiently specific submissions or relevant case law. It also said there was no evidence of malicious prosecution, and noted that a 2015 application for a declaration of miscarriage of justice had been refused.
As the plaintiff was not entitled to rely on the later constitutional ruling and that was the remaining basis of his claim, the court said damages did not arise. It awarded the defendants their costs, to be adjudicated if the parties could not agree.