The Court of Appeal has dismissed Michael O’Callaghan’s appeal against the refusal of damages after his robbery conviction was quashed, while allowing the State’s cross-appeal on a separate claim under the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003.
O’Callaghan had been convicted in 2011 of offences arising from an armed robbery at a Cork city post office. The Court of Criminal Appeal quashed the conviction in July 2013 because the evidence was insufficient to allow the case to go to a jury. It directed no retrial.
He later sought damages on two main grounds: a miscarriage of justice and a breach of his right to have proceedings heard with reasonable expedition. The High Court rejected both claims, although it had extended the time limit for the statutory human-rights claim.
In a judgment delivered on 6 July 2020, the three-judge Court of Appeal ruled that Irish law did not provide a general cause of action for damages for miscarriage of justice outside the remedies specified by law. It said the available routes included a certificate under the Criminal Procedure Act 1993, a claim based on a judge’s mala fides, or compensation under section 3A of the 2003 Act. None applied in this case.
The court also allowed the State’s cross-appeal against the extension of time for the section 3(2) claim. O’Callaghan had not provided an explanation or evidence to support an extension, and the claim was statute-barred. The court said the European human-rights case law could still inform its consideration of the constitutional delay claim, but there was no separate section 3(2) claim before it.
The delay claim concerned a backlog in the appellate system. O’Callaghan’s appeal hearing took place in April 2013, more than two years after he lodged his notice of appeal. The Court of Appeal accepted that the waiting period was prolonged by systemic problems, including an insufficient number of judges, for which the State was responsible. It also found that regular appearances in a list to fix dates did not meaningfully advance the case in the circumstances.
However, the court described the damages claim as borderline. It said O’Callaghan had not produced comparative evidence showing what the normal waiting time for a conviction appeal was. His appeal was not ready to be listed for a hearing until his grounds were amended in November 2011, and he had not applied for bail while awaiting the appeal. The court treated the failure to seek bail as weighing against him, while finding that an application for priority would likely have been futile.
The court concluded that the evidence did not establish that the overall time taken was unreasonable or that O’Callaghan was entitled to damages for breach of his constitutional right to reasonable expedition. It dismissed his appeal and upheld the High Court’s refusal of damages. The judgment was agreed by Donnelly and Power JJ.