Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Interviewees in garda station did not have right to sight of evidence in advance of interview
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court dismisses applications for judicial review in respect of two applicants who, as arrested, persons argued that they were entitled to sight of any evidence proposed to put to them in the course of interview by the Gardaí in advance of such interview taking place in light of an EU Directive on the Right to Information in Criminal Proceedings, on the grounds that it was difficult to understand what precise prejudice arose where both applicants effectively remained silent in their interviews and no remedy was available at this time; but if the court of trial misapplies the law, then the remedy would be an appeal or, in some cases, an application to quash the conviction by way of judicial review.
Criminal law – judicial review – whether or not the applicants, as arrested persons, are entitled to sight of any evidence it is proposed to put to them in the course of interview by the Gardaí in advance of such interview taking place – Article 6 (3) of EU Directive 2012/13/EU – Right to Information in Criminal Proceedings – whether the failure to provide the requested evidence amounted to a breach of the applicant’s rights to due process pursuant to the Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – whether the respondents are in breach of the Directive by failing to provide for a system giving suspects timely access to evidence against them – whether the interrogating Gardaí were not entitled to “ambush” the applicants with evidence to gauge their reaction without them having been given a fair opportunity beforehand to consider that evidence – mootness – no claim for damages in these proceedings – difficult to understand what precise prejudice arose – remedy is an appeal or in some cases, an application to quash the conviction by way of judicial review – judicial review applications dismissed.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
