Ó Maicín -v- Ireland & ors [2014] IESC 12_ (27 February 2014)

Ó Maicín -v- Ireland & ors [2014] IESC 12_ (27 February 2014)

The constitutional right to conduct official business in Irish is not absolute and must be balanced against the constitutional requirement that juries be broadly representative. Requiring all jurors to be competent in Irish would exclude a significant portion of otherwise qualified jurors, even in the Gaeltacht, and thus breach the constitutional imperative of representativeness. Translation is a constitutionally permissible accommodation. The applicant is not entitled to a jury all of whose members are competent in Irish without translation.

Citation
[2014] IESC 12_
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Peadar Ó Maicín; Respondent: Ireland; Respondent: The Attorney General; Respondent: The Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform; Respondent: His Honour Raymond Groarke; Respondent: The Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
27 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed
Legal Topics
Right to Trial by Jury, Language Rights Under the Constitution, Representativeness of Juries, Use of Irish Language in Courts, Article 8 of the Constitution, Article 38.5 of the Constitution
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Language Rights Right to Trial by Jury Language Rights Under the Constitution Representativeness of Juries Use of Irish Language in Courts Article 8 of the Constitution +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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peadar Ó Maicín

Applicant/appellant

Ireland

Respondent

The Attorney General

Respondent

The Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform

Respondent

His Honour Raymond Groarke

Respondent

The Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an accused is constitutionally entitled to a jury fully competent in Irish without translation in a criminal trial
  2. 2 Whether the State's obligation to facilitate Irish language rights requires empanelling such a jury, particularly in the Gaeltacht
  3. 3 Whether excluding non-Irish speakers from a jury to achieve this would breach the constitutional requirement for representative juries

Ratio Decidendi

The constitutional right to conduct official business in Irish is not absolute and must be balanced against the constitutional requirement that juries be broadly representative. Requiring all jurors to be competent in Irish would exclude a significant portion of otherwise qualified jurors, even in the Gaeltacht, and thus breach the constitutional imperative of representativeness. Translation is a constitutionally permissible accommodation. The applicant is not entitled to a jury all of whose members are competent in Irish without translation.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The order of the High Court is affirmed.