168:
that error. The
Supreme Court held it is clear from many decisions since the enactment of the 33rd Amendment to the Constitution and the terms of the Constitution, that in order for the Court to grant leave, the particular case involves a matter of general public importance or that it is otherwise in the interest of justice that it be appealed to the Court. Furthermore, the panel of judges in the Supreme Court agreed that "It will rarely be necessary in the interest of justice to permit an appeal to this court simply because it is said that the lower court was in error." The parties would have to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Constitution will not allow parties to leapfrog from the High Court to the Supreme Court as the Supreme Court asserted that they will only hear appeals that are limited to issues that are important for the public or otherwise in the interest of justice to be heard by it. As the Supreme Court stated clearly that the overall approach to leave is clear:
31:
143:
appealed to the Court of Appeal. Sheehan J. delivering the majority opinion in the Court of Appeal stated that Mr S had established sufficient prejudice so as to give rise to the risk of an unfair trail. Moreover, Sheehan J. concluded that the case before him met the test established in the case of
205:
decided when it may be necessary to leapfrog from the High Court to
Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held factors which may be taken into consideration when deciding if this is necessary may be issues such as the cost of two appeals, matters of particular urgency, effect on other cases if they are
167:
The
Supreme Court noted that since the enactment of the 33rd Amendment the function of the Supreme Court is no longer an appeal court to remedy errors made by the trial court. If the High Court has made an error within a case this Amendment now confers the power onto the Court of Appeal to remedy
142:
Mr S. was charged with the offence of rape alleged to have occurred between 1 January 1970 and 21 May 1970. Mr S. brought an application before the High Court seeking to prohibit his trial on the grounds of delay. The High Court where McDermott J resided heard and refused the application. Mr S.
133:
case in which the Court ruled on the determination of article 34.5.3° of the
Constitution when the Court can grant an allowance for an appeal from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court. The ruling declared that the Supreme Court "is no longer a Court for the correction of error but
159:
had departed from the established jurisprudence on delay in the criminal context. In addition, the DPP argued that some of the grounds on which the Court of Appeal based their decision were erroneous. The court's decision offers clear guidance on when a prospective appeal has implications for
176:
Therefore, the
Supreme court is no longer a court for correction of error, but rather a court which has the constitutional task to determine issues of public importance. Therefore, the court decided that the case before them is not an appropriate case to grant leave to appeal.
172:“Unless it can be said that the case has the potential to influence true matters of principle rather than the application of those matters of principle to the specific facts of the case in question then the constitutional threshold will not be met”.
200:
established that the
Supreme Court may grant leave to appeal where "a) that the decision involves a matter of general public importance; or (b) that in the interests of justice, it is necessary that there be a Supreme Court appeal."
164:
to grant leave, it has to be established that it was either a matter of public importance or "that it is otherwise in the interest of justice necessary that there be an appeal to this Court".
264:
232:
411:
192:
and
Wansboro v. DPP set out when and how the Supreme Court will grant leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal or directly from the High Court.
206:
awaiting the determination of this case and will the issues still be alive. All three decisions were unanimous by the
Supreme Court.
401:
147:
the "wholly exceptional circumstances category." For those reasons, the appeal was allowed and the trial was prohibited.
155:
The DPP sought leave to appeal the order of prohibition under
Article 34 of the Constitution. The DPP claimed that the
377:
134:
rather a Court which has the principal constitutional task of determining issues of general importance."
406:
330:
416:
156:
161:
130:
46:
250:
Biehler, Hilary (2019). "PRACTICE & PROCEDURE THE CRITERIA FOR APPEALS TO THE SUPREME COURT".
35:
233:"Ben Clarke BL explains the developing jurisprudence on leave to appeal to the Supreme Court"
98:
Clarke C.J., O'Donnell J., McKechnie J., MacMenamin J., Dunne J., Charleton J., O'Malley J.
8:
395:
118:
criminal offences, appealing cases, constitution, powers of the
Supreme Court
30:
320:
B  S v The Director of Public Prosecutions IESCDET 134 (1).
348:Price Waterhouse Cooper v. Quinn Insurance Limited
311:B S v THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS para 1.
393:
150:
378:"Leapfrog and Tertiary Appeals when and how"
265:Supreme Court of Ireland, Annual Report 2018
412:Republic of Ireland constitutional case law
360:Wansboro v. Director Of Public Prosecutions
190:Price Waterhouse Coopers v. Quinn Insurance
180:
29:
160:established principles. In order for the
300:B.S. v. Director of Public Prosecutions
249:
186:B.S. v. Director of Public Prosecutions
126:B.S. v. Director of Public Prosecutions
24:B.S. v. Director of Public Prosecutions
394:
372:
370:
368:
276:H. v. Director of Public Prosecutions
145:H. v. Director of Public Prosecutions
295:
293:
227:
225:
223:
221:
219:
287:Irish Constitution Article 34.5.3°.
13:
365:
14:
428:
290:
216:
353:
341:
402:Supreme Court of Ireland cases
323:
314:
305:
281:
269:
258:
243:
1:
209:
137:
151:Holding of the Supreme Court
7:
10:
433:
117:
112:
107:
102:
94:
89:
81:
73:
68:
60:
52:
42:
28:
23:
198:Price Waterhouse Coopers
47:Supreme Court of Ireland
18:Irish Supreme Court case
254:– via Westlaw IE.
181:Subsequent developments
36:Coat of arms of Ireland
174:
331:"Stair Way to Heaven"
188:along with the cases
170:
129:IESCDET 134; was an
131:Irish Supreme Court
108:very brief summary.
407:2017 in Irish law
122:
121:
424:
417:2017 in case law
386:
385:
382:McCannFitzgerald
374:
363:
357:
351:
345:
339:
338:
327:
321:
318:
312:
309:
303:
297:
288:
285:
279:
273:
267:
262:
256:
255:
247:
241:
240:
239:. 20 March 2018.
229:
90:Court membership
33:
21:
20:
432:
431:
427:
426:
425:
423:
422:
421:
392:
391:
390:
389:
376:
375:
366:
358:
354:
346:
342:
329:
328:
324:
319:
315:
310:
306:
298:
291:
286:
282:
274:
270:
263:
259:
252:Irish Law Times
248:
244:
231:
230:
217:
212:
183:
157:Court of Appeal
153:
140:
77:Court of Appeal
56:6 December 2017
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
430:
420:
419:
414:
409:
404:
388:
387:
364:
352:
340:
322:
313:
304:
302:IESCDET 134 1.
289:
280:
268:
257:
242:
214:
213:
211:
208:
182:
179:
152:
149:
139:
136:
120:
119:
115:
114:
110:
109:
105:
104:
100:
99:
96:
95:Judges sitting
92:
91:
87:
86:
83:
79:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
65:
62:
58:
57:
54:
50:
49:
44:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
429:
418:
415:
413:
410:
408:
405:
403:
400:
399:
397:
383:
379:
373:
371:
369:
361:
356:
349:
344:
336:
332:
326:
317:
308:
301:
296:
294:
284:
277:
272:
266:
261:
253:
246:
238:
234:
228:
226:
224:
222:
220:
215:
207:
204:
199:
195:
191:
187:
178:
173:
169:
165:
163:
162:Supreme Court
158:
148:
146:
135:
132:
128:
127:
116:
111:
106:
103:Case opinions
101:
97:
93:
88:
85:Supreme Court
84:
80:
76:
74:Appealed from
72:
67:
63:
59:
55:
51:
48:
45:
41:
37:
32:
27:
22:
16:
381:
359:
355:
347:
343:
334:
325:
316:
307:
299:
283:
275:
271:
260:
251:
245:
236:
202:
197:
193:
189:
185:
184:
175:
171:
166:
154:
144:
141:
125:
124:
123:
69:Case history
15:
362:IESCDET 115
335:Law Society
82:Appealed to
64:IESCDET 134
396:Categories
237:SCOIRLBLOG
210:References
138:Background
278:IESC 55.
203:Wansboro
113:Keywords
61:Citation
350:IESC 73
53:Decided
43:Court
196:and
194:B.S.
398::
380:.
367:^
333:.
292:^
235:.
218:^
384:.
337:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
