Corway v. Independent Newspapers (Ireland) Limited [1999] IESC 5; [1999] 4 IR 485; [2000] 1 ILRM 426 (30th July, 1999)

Corway v. Independent Newspapers (Ireland) Limited [1999] IESC 5; [1999] 4 IR 485; [2000] 1 ILRM 426 (30th July, 1999)

The Court held that, in the absence of a legislative definition of blasphemy and given the uncertainty as to its elements (actus reus and mens rea), it is impossible to say of what the offence consists. Therefore, the Court could not authorise the institution of a criminal prosecution for blasphemy against the respondents. Furthermore, the facts alleged did not disclose any insult to the Blessed Sacrament or intent to insult, and no jury could reasonably conclude otherwise.

Citation
[2000] 1 ILRM 426
Parties
Applicant: John Corway; First Respondent: Independent Newspapers (Ireland) Limited; Second Respondent: Independent Newspapers (Ireland) Limited; Third Respondent: Aengus Fanning
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Leave to Institute Criminal Prosecution for Blasphemy
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Blasphemy, Freedom of Expression, Defamation, Religious Offence, Constitutional Interpretation
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Media Law Blasphemy Freedom of Expression Defamation Religious Offence Constitutional Interpretation

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Corway

Applicant

Independent Newspapers (Ireland) Limited

First Respondent

Independent Newspapers (Ireland) Limited

Second Respondent

Aengus Fanning

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Leave to Institute Criminal Prosecution for Blasphemy

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the publication in question constituted the offence of blasphemy under Irish law
  2. 2 Whether the offence of blasphemy is sufficiently defined in Irish law to permit prosecution
  3. 3 Whether the facts alleged disclosed a prima facie case of blasphemy

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that, in the absence of a legislative definition of blasphemy and given the uncertainty as to its elements (actus reus and mens rea), it is impossible to say of what the offence consists. Therefore, the Court could not authorise the institution of a criminal prosecution for blasphemy against the respondents. Furthermore, the facts alleged did not disclose any insult to the Blessed Sacrament or intent to insult, and no jury could reasonably conclude otherwise.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Refusal to grant leave to institute criminal prosecution for blasphemy affirmed