The Court of Criminal Appeal has refused the Director of Public Prosecutions’ attempt to have Brian Meehan’s application to quash his murder conviction dismissed without a hearing on its merits.
In a judgment delivered on 23 January 2014, the court said it lacked jurisdiction to summarily dismiss the application under section 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1993 because the court registrar had not referred it for summary determination. Such a referral was an essential precondition, the court said.
Meehan’s substantive application was brought under section 2 of the Act. He seeks to have his 1999 conviction and life sentence for murder quashed, relying on what he claims are new or newly discovered facts showing a miscarriage of justice. The judgment does not determine whether those claims are made out.
The DPP also asked the court, as an alternative, to decide a series of issues before the application proceeded in the ordinary way. Those included whether the material relied on was new or newly discovered, whether the application was an abuse of process, whether estoppel by omission applied, and whether the application amounted to a collateral attack on the court’s earlier decision. The DPP contended that the application was wholly without merit; Meehan’s counsel took the contrary position.
The court said the proposed preliminary issues covered virtually the full scope of the dispute and would in substance require a hearing on the merits. It found no grounds to order a separate or preliminary hearing, describing the alternative request as misconceived or, at best, premature.
The judgment noted that whether the material was newly discovered remained disputed. It said Meehan would have to establish the facts relied on at the merits hearing. The court also made no decision on disclosure: no disclosure issue had been brought before it, and any such question could be considered if it arose later.
The court refused the DPP’s motion and said Meehan’s section 2 application should continue to a hearing on its merits in the ordinary way. It left open the possibility of case-management directions and any future disclosure application at an appropriate stage.