Director of Public Prosecutions v Galvin (Unapproved) [2020] IECA 319_1 (19 November 2020)

Director of Public Prosecutions v Galvin (Unapproved) [2020] IECA 319_1 (19 November 2020)

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court was correct to convert the proceedings to a plenary action, as constitutional challenges to legislation should presumptively be brought by plenary proceedings to ensure a proper evidential foundation, including the possibility of cross-examination. The timing of the conversion was not fatal, as Order 84, rule 27(7) permits such direction at any stage. No fair trial or procedural rights of the appellant were infringed by this conversion, and any issues regarding cross-examination and its impact on future criminal proceedings could be managed by the trial court if necessary.

Citation
[2020] IECA 319_1
Parties
Appellant: Darragh Galvin; Respondents: Director of Public Prosecutions, The Attorney General & Ireland
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
19 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order Converting Judicial Review to Plenary Action
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Challenge to Constitutionality of Legislation, Judicial Review Vs Plenary Proceedings, Right to Fair Trial, Mens Rea and Strict Liability, Sentencing Discretion, Procedural Fairness
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Civil Procedure Challenge to Constitutionality of Legislation Judicial Review Vs Plenary Proceedings Right to Fair Trial Mens Rea and Strict Liability Sentencing Discretion +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 4 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Darragh Galvin

Appellant

Director of Public Prosecutions, The Attorney General & Ireland

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order Converting Judicial Review to Plenary Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in converting judicial review proceedings to plenary action for a constitutional challenge to criminal legislation
  2. 2 Whether such conversion, especially to allow cross-examination, infringes the appellant's fair trial rights or is premature before exchange of pleadings

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court was correct to convert the proceedings to a plenary action, as constitutional challenges to legislation should presumptively be brought by plenary proceedings to ensure a proper evidential foundation, including the possibility of cross-examination. The timing of the conversion was not fatal, as Order 84, rule 27(7) permits such direction at any stage. No fair trial or procedural rights of the appellant were infringed by this conversion, and any issues regarding cross-examination and its impact on future criminal proceedings could be managed by the trial court if necessary.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The proceedings are to continue as a plenary action.