Conolly v Commissioner of An Garda Siochana & Ors (Approved) [2024] IEHC 334 (05 June 2024)

Conolly v Commissioner of An Garda Siochana & Ors (Approved) [2024] IEHC 334 (05 June 2024)

The plaintiff's convictions were final before s.18 of the 1935 Act was declared unconstitutional. He did not challenge the provision during proceedings, and the other convictions were unaffected by the unconstitutionality. The law does not permit reopening concluded cases or awarding damages in these circumstances. There was no evidence of malicious prosecution or oppression. Article 7 ECHR does not apply as the conduct was criminal at the time. The claim for damages is refused.

Citation
[2024] IEHC 334
Parties
Plaintiff: Conolly; Defendants: The Commissioner of An Garda Síochána & Ors
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
05 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim for Damages Following Criminal Conviction Under Unconstitutional Statute / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Retrospective Effect of Judicial Decisions, Unconstitutionality of Statutes, Damages for Wrongful Conviction, Malicious Prosecution, Finality of Criminal Proceedings, Article 7 ECHR
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Tort Law Retrospective Effect of Judicial Decisions Unconstitutionality of Statutes Damages for Wrongful Conviction Malicious Prosecution Finality of Criminal Proceedings +1 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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Conolly

Plaintiff

The Commissioner of An Garda Síochána & Ors

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim for Damages Following Criminal Conviction Under Unconstitutional Statute / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a plaintiff can claim damages for a conviction under a statute later found unconstitutional when the conviction was final before the statute was struck down
  2. 2 Whether the unconstitutionality of one conviction contaminates other convictions arising from the same incident
  3. 3 Whether Article 7 ECHR applies to convictions under statutes later found unconstitutional

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's convictions were final before s.18 of the 1935 Act was declared unconstitutional. He did not challenge the provision during proceedings, and the other convictions were unaffected by the unconstitutionality. The law does not permit reopening concluded cases or awarding damages in these circumstances. There was no evidence of malicious prosecution or oppression. Article 7 ECHR does not apply as the conduct was criminal at the time. The claim for damages is refused.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Application for damages refused
  • Plaintiff to pay Defendants' costs, to be adjudicated in default of agreement