Tracey -v- O'Donnell J & anor [2017] IESC 7 (10 February 2017)

Tracey -v- O'Donnell J & anor [2017] IESC 7 (10 February 2017)

The extension of time was granted due to exceptional circumstances entirely outside the applicant's control, including the backdating of the perfected order and lack of legal advice, which justified the delay. The case raised an issue of general public importance regarding the circumstances in which contempt in the face of the court may be found, satisfying the constitutional threshold for a direct appeal. The result would be the same whether considered under the old or new appellate regime, making it unnecessary to resolve the issue of retrospectivity of the 33rd Amendment.

Citation
[2017] IESC 7
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Kevin Tracey; Respondent: District Court Judge Aeneas McCarthy; Notice Party: The Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
10 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Supreme Court Motion for Extension of Time
Outcome
Motion allowed; extension of time to appeal granted, appeal confined to specified grounds.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time to Appeal, Retrospective Application of Constitutional Amendments, Contempt of Court, Right of Appeal, Exceptional Circumstances
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Criminal Contempt Extension of Time to Appeal Retrospective Application of Constitutional Amendments Contempt of Court Right of Appeal Exceptional Circumstances

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kevin Tracey

Applicant/appellant

District Court Judge Aeneas McCarthy

Respondent

The Director of Public Prosecutions

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Supreme Court Motion for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to appeal nearly nine years out of time
  2. 2 Whether the 33rd Amendment to the Constitution applies retrospectively to appeals from orders made before its commencement
  3. 3 Whether the constitutional threshold for a leapfrog appeal to the Supreme Court is met

Ratio Decidendi

The extension of time was granted due to exceptional circumstances entirely outside the applicant's control, including the backdating of the perfected order and lack of legal advice, which justified the delay. The case raised an issue of general public importance regarding the circumstances in which contempt in the face of the court may be found, satisfying the constitutional threshold for a direct appeal. The result would be the same whether considered under the old or new appellate regime, making it unnecessary to resolve the issue of retrospectivity of the 33rd Amendment.

Court Disposition

Motion allowed; extension of time to appeal granted, appeal confined to specified grounds.

Orders

  • Extension of time to appeal granted.
  • Appeal confined to grounds concerning the manner in which the finding of contempt was made and its compatibility with constitutional, ECHR, and EU law.