DPP -v- Jason Kavanagh, Mark Farrelly & Christopher Corcoran [2012] IECCA 65 (24 May 2012)

DPP -v- Jason Kavanagh, Mark Farrelly & Christopher Corcoran [2012] IECCA 65 (24 May 2012)

Because the applicants' cases had not reached finality and the issue of the constitutionality of s. 29 warrants was raised at trial and on appeal, they are entitled to rely on the Supreme Court's finding in Damache that s. 29 is unconstitutional. The warrants issued under s. 29 were invalid, and the convictions based on evidence obtained under those warrants cannot stand. Retrials are ordered.

Citation
[2012] IECCA 65
Parties
Prosecutor: Director of Public Prosecutions; Applicant: Jason Kavanagh; Applicant: Mark Farrelly; Respondent: Christopher Corcoran
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
24 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Preliminary Issue on Appeal Before Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
appeals allowed; retrials directed
Legal Topics
Search Warrants, Unconstitutionality, Retrospective Application of Constitutional Rulings, Right to Fair Trial, Inviolability of Dwelling
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Search Warrants Unconstitutionality Retrospective Application of Constitutional Rulings Right to Fair Trial Inviolability of Dwelling

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Prosecutor

Jason Kavanagh

Applicant

Mark Farrelly

Applicant

Christopher Corcoran

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Preliminary Issue on Appeal Before Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the Supreme Court decision in Damache v. DPP [2012] IESC 11 apply to these appeals?
  2. 2 If so, what are the consequences for the convictions based on warrants issued under s. 29 of the Offences Against the State Act, 1939?

Ratio Decidendi

Because the applicants' cases had not reached finality and the issue of the constitutionality of s. 29 warrants was raised at trial and on appeal, they are entitled to rely on the Supreme Court's finding in Damache that s. 29 is unconstitutional. The warrants issued under s. 29 were invalid, and the convictions based on evidence obtained under those warrants cannot stand. Retrials are ordered.

Court Disposition

appeals allowed; retrials directed

Orders

  • Convictions quashed for all applicants
  • Retrial of each applicant ordered