Director of Public Prosecutions v Casey [2019] IESC 7 (21 February 2019)

Director of Public Prosecutions v Casey [2019] IESC 7 (21 February 2019)

The defence of officially induced error or entrapment by estoppel is not available on the facts as there was no evidence that the accused sought or received specific legal advice or authorisation from an official responsible for the relevant law prior to the transactions. Mere absence of regulatory objection or general discussions about inter-bank support do not amount to official sanction. Ignorance of the law is not a defence, and the requirements for the procedural bar to prosecution based on officially induced error were not met.

Citation
[2019] IESC 7
Parties
Prosecutor/respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Accused/appellant: Denis Casey
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
21 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Court of Appeal, Following Conviction in Circuit Criminal Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Conspiracy to Defraud, Officially Induced Error, Entrapment by Estoppel, Accounting Standards, Corporate Fraud, Ignorance of Law, Procedural Fairness
Criminal Law Company Law Constitutional Law Conspiracy to Defraud Officially Induced Error Entrapment by Estoppel Accounting Standards Corporate Fraud +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 43 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Prosecutor/respondent

Denis Casey

Accused/appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Court of Appeal, Following Conviction in Circuit Criminal Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defence of 'officially induced error' or 'entrapment by estoppel' is available in Irish law and, if so, its parameters and applicability to the facts of this case

Ratio Decidendi

The defence of officially induced error or entrapment by estoppel is not available on the facts as there was no evidence that the accused sought or received specific legal advice or authorisation from an official responsible for the relevant law prior to the transactions. Mere absence of regulatory objection or general discussions about inter-bank support do not amount to official sanction. Ignorance of the law is not a defence, and the requirements for the procedural bar to prosecution based on officially induced error were not met.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Conviction and sentence affirmed
  • No bar to prosecution or retrial based on officially induced error or entrapment by estoppel