Dunphy (A Minor) -v- DPP [2005] IESC 75 (02 November 2005)

Dunphy (A Minor) -v- DPP [2005] IESC 75 (02 November 2005)

The applicant failed to provide any evidence, even prima facie, of impropriety, mala fides, or irrationality in the DPP's decision to prosecute her while another juvenile was diverted. The disparity in treatment was justified by the applicant's prior benefit from the Diversion Scheme and did not amount to unconstitutional discrimination. The special protection afforded to the DPP's prosecutorial decisions was not displaced, and discovery was not warranted.

Citation
[2005] IESC 75
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Sabrina Dunphy (A Minor) suing by her guardian ad litem, Sarah Molloy; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
02 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court Refusal of Discovery
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed
Legal Topics
Prosecutorial Discretion, Equality Before the Law, Judicial Review, Discovery in Judicial Review, Juvenile Justice
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Prosecutorial Discretion Equality Before the Law Judicial Review Discovery in Judicial Review Juvenile Justice

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sabrina Dunphy (A Minor) suing by her guardian ad litem, Sarah Molloy

Applicant/appellant

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court Refusal of Discovery

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to discovery of documents relating to the DPP's decision to prosecute her while another more culpable juvenile was diverted under the Juvenile Diversion Programme
  2. 2 Whether the DPP's decision to prosecute was discriminatory, irrational, or improper so as to justify judicial review and discovery
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has discharged the evidential burden to overcome the special protection afforded to the DPP's prosecutorial decisions

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide any evidence, even prima facie, of impropriety, mala fides, or irrationality in the DPP's decision to prosecute her while another juvenile was diverted. The disparity in treatment was justified by the applicant's prior benefit from the Diversion Scheme and did not amount to unconstitutional discrimination. The special protection afforded to the DPP's prosecutorial decisions was not displaced, and discovery was not warranted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed

Orders

  • Application for discovery refused
  • No further relief granted