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.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court, in proceedings concerning the interaction between Irish language rights and the conduct of a summary criminal trial in the District Court, grants judicial review of the decision to refuse the application for a bilingual District judge simply because the applicant spoke English, on the grounds that there is a Constitutional duty on the State to either make reasonable efforts to assign a bilingual District judge where an accused person has chosen to exercise his right to present his side of the case in the Irish language.
Judicial review – Irish language rights - interaction between Irish language rights and the conduct of a summary criminal trial in the District Court - whether the State has a duty of any kind under Article 8 of the Constitution to provide a bilingual District Judge in circumstances where an accused person has chosen to exercise his (now well-established) constitutional right to present his side of the case in the Irish language - scope of that duty - State does have a duty either to make reasonable efforts to assign a bilingual District Judge or to assign such a Judge as far as is reasonably practicable - identification of a constitutional basis for this duty is novel - relationship between the constitutional status of the Irish language and the lived reality of the language – a language right argument, not a due process argument - it has been common practice to assign a bilingual District Judge in cases to be wholly or partly heard in Irish - logistics of interpreting in a bilingual trial - linguistic effects of translating from one language to another - status of the Irish Language under the Constitution - legal principles concerning the use of the Irish language previously placed beyond doubt by decisions of the courts – relevant caselaw - issue arising in the present case has not previously been definitively decided – wrongly assumed in many cases that if the State appoints an interpreter, this satisfies or exhausts any constitutional obligations placed upon the State by Article 8 - must be some duty on the part of the State to make at least some effort to assign a bilingual judge – refuse the application for a bilingual District Judge simply because the applicant spoke English, as happened in the present case, appears to me to run contrary to the whole spirit of Article 8 together with the jurisprudence on it - necessary to decide on the precise standard but it can be said that it is no lower than a duty to assign a bilingual judge so far as is practicable or to make reasonable efforts to assign a bilingual judge where requested by an accused who wishes to conduct his side of the case in Irish - declaration that the Minister has a duty to make reasonable efforts to assign a bilingual (Irish-English) District Judge for the forthcoming criminal trial of the applicant in the District Court - practical consequences – judicial review granted
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.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.