Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Mulvey [2014] IESC 18 (25 February 2014)

Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Mulvey [2014] IESC 18 (25 February 2014)

The High Court erred in refusing bail to the applicant based on an inference of witness intimidation without sufficient evidence connecting the applicant to such intimidation. The State did not establish as a matter of probability, by cogent evidence, that the applicant would interfere with witnesses if granted bail. The refusal of bail was not justified on the evidence presented.

Citation
[2014] IESC 18
Parties
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Applicant/appellant: David Mulvey
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
25 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Bail Application Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Refusal of Bail
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court decision set aside; matter remitted to High Court
Legal Topics
Bail, Presumption of Innocence, Interference With Witnesses, Evidentiary Standards
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Bail Presumption of Innocence Interference With Witnesses Evidentiary Standards

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

David Mulvey

Applicant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Bail Application Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Refusal of Bail

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in refusing bail based on an inference of witness intimidation without sufficient evidence
  2. 2 What evidentiary standard is required for refusal of bail on O’Callaghan grounds

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in refusing bail to the applicant based on an inference of witness intimidation without sufficient evidence connecting the applicant to such intimidation. The State did not establish as a matter of probability, by cogent evidence, that the applicant would interfere with witnesses if granted bail. The refusal of bail was not justified on the evidence presented.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court decision set aside; matter remitted to High Court

Orders

  • Set aside the High Court's refusal of bail
  • Remit the bail application for reconsideration by the High Court