Sweeney v Ireland [2019] IESC 39 (28 May 2019)

Sweeney v Ireland [2019] IESC 39 (28 May 2019)

Section 9(1)(b) of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 is not unconstitutional as properly construed; it does not require self-incrimination, includes a reasonable excuse defence, and its elements are sufficiently certain. The section imposes a civic duty to assist in the detection and prosecution of serious crime, but does not infringe the right to silence or privilege against self-incrimination, as the prosecution must prove the absence of reasonable excuse and cannot compel disclosure that would incriminate the accused.

Citation
[2019] IESC 39
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Michael Sweeney; Defendant/appellant: Ireland, the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions; Intervener: The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
28 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Challenge (plenary Action) / Appeal From High Court to Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court declaration of unconstitutionality overturned
Legal Topics
Right to Silence, Privilege Against Self Incrimination, Obligation to Disclose Information, Certainty Principle, Misprision of Felony, Reporting Obligations, Compatibility With Constitution
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Right to Silence Privilege Against Self Incrimination Obligation to Disclose Information Certainty Principle Misprision of Felony +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 4 Authorities cited 49 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Sweeney

Plaintiff/respondent

Ireland, the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions

Defendant/appellant

The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Challenge (plenary Action) / Appeal From High Court to Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 9(1)(b) of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 is unconstitutional
  2. 2 Whether the section infringes the right to silence and privilege against self-incrimination
  3. 3 Whether the section is impermissibly vague and violates the certainty principle

Ratio Decidendi

Section 9(1)(b) of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 is not unconstitutional as properly construed; it does not require self-incrimination, includes a reasonable excuse defence, and its elements are sufficiently certain. The section imposes a civic duty to assist in the detection and prosecution of serious crime, but does not infringe the right to silence or privilege against self-incrimination, as the prosecution must prove the absence of reasonable excuse and cannot compel disclosure that would incriminate the accused.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court declaration of unconstitutionality overturned

Orders

  • Section 9(1)(b) of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 is constitutional
  • No order as to costs specified