Director of Public Prosecutions -v- O'Connor [2014] IECCA 4 (23 January 2014)

Director of Public Prosecutions -v- O'Connor [2014] IECCA 4 (23 January 2014)

The appellant was disentitled from relying on the Damache declaration because he had not raised the constitutional issue at trial, had expressly conceded the validity of the warrant, and no substantial injustice arose. The requirements for certification under s.29 were not met as the issue did not have exceptional public importance beyond the individual case.

Citation
[2014] IECCA 4
Parties
Prosecutor/respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Accused/appellant: Paul O’Connor
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
23 January 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Certification of Point of Law Under S.29 Courts of Justice Act 1924
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Robbery, Search Warrants, Unconstitutionality, Appeal Procedure, Waiver and Acquiescence
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Robbery Search Warrants Unconstitutionality Appeal Procedure Waiver and Acquiescence

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

Paul O’Connor

Accused/appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Certification of Point of Law Under S.29 Courts of Justice Act 1924

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an appellant must have raised a constitutional objection at trial to avail of a subsequent declaration of unconstitutionality in another case
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was disentitled from relying on the Damache declaration due to conduct at trial
  3. 3 Whether the requirements for certification under s.29 of the Courts of Justice Act 1924 were met

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was disentitled from relying on the Damache declaration because he had not raised the constitutional issue at trial, had expressly conceded the validity of the warrant, and no substantial injustice arose. The requirements for certification under s.29 were not met as the issue did not have exceptional public importance beyond the individual case.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • S.29 application for certification of point of law refused