Director of Public Prosecutions v Sheehan (Approved) [2021] IESC 49 (29 July 2021)

Director of Public Prosecutions v Sheehan (Approved) [2021] IESC 49 (29 July 2021)

The Supreme Court held that while the trial judge erred in refusing to allow the appellant to discharge his legal representatives, the error did not result in a miscarriage of justice given the conduct of the trial, absence of prejudice, and strength of evidence. The application of the proviso was appropriate. The provisions permitting inferences from silence were properly applied as the appellant's responses did not constitute a plausible account.

Citation
[2021] IESC 49
Parties
Prosecutor/respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Accused/appellant: Gavin Sheehan
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
29 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Right to Self Representation, Legal Representation, Right to Silence, Inferences From Silence, Application of Proviso, Fair Trial, Admissibility of Evidence
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Right to Self Representation Legal Representation Right to Silence Inferences From Silence Application of Proviso Fair Trial +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 3 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Prosecutor/respondent

Gavin Sheehan

Accused/appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to allow the appellant to discharge his legal representatives and represent himself
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying the proviso under s.3(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1993 after finding a breach of the right to self-representation
  3. 3 Whether the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1984 (as amended) permitting inferences from silence were properly applied

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that while the trial judge erred in refusing to allow the appellant to discharge his legal representatives, the error did not result in a miscarriage of justice given the conduct of the trial, absence of prejudice, and strength of evidence. The application of the proviso was appropriate. The provisions permitting inferences from silence were properly applied as the appellant's responses did not constitute a plausible account.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • conviction and sentence affirmed