Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Gormley, Director of Public Prosecutions -v- White [2014] IESC 17 (06 March 2014)

Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Gormley, Director of Public Prosecutions -v- White [2014] IESC 17 (06 March 2014)

The Supreme Court held that, under Article 38.1 of the Constitution, a person in custody who requests a solicitor is entitled to have police questioning postponed for a reasonable period to allow the solicitor to attend and advise the suspect. Any statements made in breach of this right are inadmissible. However, the taking of forensic samples prior to solicitor access does not breach the privilege against self-incrimination unless the means used are coercive or inhuman. The Court allowed Gormley's appeal (statements inadmissible) and dismissed White's appeal (forensic samples admissible).

Citation
[2014] IESC 17
Parties
Prosecutor/respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Accused/appellant: Raymond Gormley; Accused/appellant: Craig White
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
06 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Gormley: Appeal allowed; White: Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Right to Legal Advice, Admissibility of Evidence, Due Process, Self Incrimination, Access to Solicitor, Forensic Evidence, Police Interrogation
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Right to Legal Advice Admissibility of Evidence Due Process Self Incrimination Access to Solicitor +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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Prosecutor/respondent

Raymond Gormley

Accused/appellant

Craig White

Accused/appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a detained suspect is entitled to have police questioning postponed until a requested solicitor arrives
  2. 2 Whether forensic samples can be taken from a suspect before access to a solicitor
  3. 3 Whether evidence obtained in breach of these rights is admissible

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that, under Article 38.1 of the Constitution, a person in custody who requests a solicitor is entitled to have police questioning postponed for a reasonable period to allow the solicitor to attend and advise the suspect. Any statements made in breach of this right are inadmissible. However, the taking of forensic samples prior to solicitor access does not breach the privilege against self-incrimination unless the means used are coercive or inhuman. The Court allowed Gormley's appeal (statements inadmissible) and dismissed White's appeal (forensic samples admissible).

Court Disposition

Gormley: Appeal allowed; White: Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • In Gormley's case, conviction set aside due to inadmissibility of statements made before solicitor's arrival.
  • In White's case, appeal dismissed; forensic evidence admitted.