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 officers under investigation was improper and must be quashed; the confidentiality provision does not bar use of statements in criminal prosecutions; the Order of Prohibition should be replaced by an injunction restraining the DPP from prosecuting the applicant on the same facts, due to procedural fairness and undertakings given.

Citation
[2000] IESC 6
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; injunction granted restraining DPP from prosecuting applicant on same facts.
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 statements taken in a Garda Complaints investigation are protected by statutory confidentiality and inadmissible in criminal prosecutions.
  3. 3 Whether the High Court's Order of Prohibition should extend to new summonses based on the same facts.

Ratio Decidendi

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

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed in part; injunction granted restraining DPP from prosecuting applicant on same facts.

Orders

  • Application to amend Notice of Appeal refused.
  • Order of Prohibition replaced by injunction restraining DPP from prosecuting Derek Carlton in respect of offences alleged to have occurred on 27th June, 1997.