Carlton v. D.P.P. (No.2) [2000] IESC 6; [2000] 3 IR 269 (7th April, 2000)

Carlton v. D.P.P. (No.2) [2000] IESC 6; [2000] 3 IR 269 (7th April, 2000)

The appointment of an Inspector from the same district as some of the officers under investigation was improper and must be quashed; the confidentiality provision does not bar use of statements in prosecution; the Order of Prohibition should be replaced by an injunction restraining the DPP from prosecuting the applicant on the same facts, given the procedural posture and undertakings given.

Citation
[2000] 3 IR 269
Parties
Applicant/respondent: Derek Carlton; Respondent/appellant: Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondent/appellant: Garda Siochana Complaints Board; Notice Party/respondent: Commissioner of An Garda Siochana
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Supreme Court Appeal and Cross Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Appointment of Investigating Officers, Confidentiality of Investigation Materials, Prohibition Orders, Procedural Fairness
Administrative Law Criminal Law Judicial Review Appointment of Investigating Officers Confidentiality of Investigation Materials Prohibition Orders Procedural Fairness

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Derek Carlton

Applicant/respondent

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent/appellant

Garda Siochana Complaints Board

Respondent/appellant

Commissioner of An Garda Siochana

Notice Party/respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Supreme Court Appeal and Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appointment of an Inspector from the same district as the subject officers was lawful under the Garda Siochana (Complaints) Act, 1986
  2. 2 Whether a Superintendent rather than an Inspector should have been appointed as investigating officer
  3. 3 Whether statements taken in the course of a Garda Complaints investigation can be used in a criminal prosecution given statutory confidentiality

Ratio Decidendi

The appointment of an Inspector from the same district as some of the officers under investigation was improper and must be quashed; the confidentiality provision does not bar use of statements in prosecution; the Order of Prohibition should be replaced by an injunction restraining the DPP from prosecuting the applicant on the same facts, given the procedural posture and undertakings given.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Application to amend Notice of Appeal refused
  • Order of Prohibition replaced with injunction restraining the DPP from prosecuting the applicant on the same facts