MacCarthaigh v. Eire [1998] IESC 11; [1999] 1 IR 186 (15th July, 1998)

MacCarthaigh v. Eire [1998] IESC 11; [1999] 1 IR 186 (15th July, 1998)

Requiring that all jurors be fluent in Irish would exclude the majority of the community from jury service, violating the constitutional requirement that juries be representative. The use of interpreters, despite its imperfections, is necessary to balance language rights with the right to a representative jury.

Citation
[1999] 1 IR 186
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Ruairí MacCárthaigh; Respondents: Éire, An t-Ard Aighne agus Stiurthóir na n-Ionchúiseamh Poiblí
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order Refusing Judicial Review
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Right to Jury Trial, Language Rights, Jury Representativeness, Use of Interpreters
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Right to Jury Trial Language Rights Jury Representativeness Use of Interpreters

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 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ruairí MacCárthaigh

Applicant/appellant

Éire, An t-Ard Aighne agus Stiurthóir na n-Ionchúiseamh Poiblí

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order Refusing Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an accused is constitutionally entitled to a jury fully fluent in Irish without need for interpreters
  2. 2 Whether restricting jury service to Irish speakers would violate the constitutional requirement of a representative jury

Ratio Decidendi

Requiring that all jurors be fluent in Irish would exclude the majority of the community from jury service, violating the constitutional requirement that juries be representative. The use of interpreters, despite its imperfections, is necessary to balance language rights with the right to a representative jury.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; High Court order refusing judicial review affirmed