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 |
Court of Appeal dismisses appeal of High Court's dismissal of application for judicial review prohibiting appellant's trial, where the statutory provision setting out the offence was alleged to be impermissibly vague and therefore repugnant to the Constitution, on the grounds that: (a) the appellant only had locus standi to challenge the section on the basis of his own personal circumstances; (b) the term “act contrary to public decency” was not inextricably linked to the concept of immorality and was not impermissibly vague, rather it had the meaning of indecent act; and (c) indecency was a term very familiar to the legal profession and triers of fact often had to decide whether a particular act had an element of indecency.
Appeal of High Court’s refusal to grant appellant relief arising from his prosecution under s. 5 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Amendment Act 1871 - appellant sought order preventing his further prosecution and a declaration of unconstitutionality of the section - appellant alleged to have urinated in public contrary to s. 5, which prohibits acts 'contrary to public decency' - appellant sought leave to apply for order of prohibition of his trial on the grounds that s. 5 was unconstitutional where offence was so vague that he could not have known in advance that his actions fell within the remit of s. 5 - leave refused by High Court primarily on grounds of locus standi and prematurity - appellant successfully appealed and substantive application heard by High Court - appellant found to have locus standi but High Court held that s. 5 was not repugnant to the Constitution - whether offence of acting 'contrary to public decency' was unconstitutional by reason of being too vague - whether decency in and of itself was merely the converse to indecency, a well-defined legal term - whether by virtue of the jus tertii rule the appellant could not seek a general review of the provision but could only rely upon such arguments as bore on his own personal circumstances.
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.
The only e-mail alert service for all Irish judgments over the past 13 years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now