Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Patchell [2014] IECCA 6 (23 January 2014)

Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Patchell [2014] IECCA 6 (23 January 2014)

The application was refused because the appellant had not raised the constitutional issue at trial or independently, and had expressly waived any challenge to the legality of his arrest and detention as part of his trial strategy. This conduct constituted acquiescence or waiver, precluding him from relying on the Damache declaration on appeal. The suggested point of law did not meet the threshold for certification under s.29 Courts of Justice Act 1924, as it lacked exceptional public importance and would not affect the ultimate disposal of the case.

Citation
[2014] IECCA 6
Parties
Prosecutor/respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Accused/appellant: David Patchell
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
23 January 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Certificate to Appeal to Supreme Court Under S.29 Courts of Justice Act 1924
Outcome
application rejected
Legal Topics
Search Warrants, Unconstitutionality, Appeal Procedure, Waiver, Estoppel, Admissibility of Evidence
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Search Warrants Unconstitutionality Appeal Procedure Waiver Estoppel Admissibility of Evidence

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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Prosecutor/respondent

David Patchell

Accused/appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Certificate to Appeal to Supreme Court Under S.29 Courts of Justice Act 1924

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an appellant must expressly raise an objection before the trial court to rely on a subsequent declaration of unconstitutionality on appeal
  2. 2 Whether conduct at trial can disentitle an appellant from relying on a constitutional declaration
  3. 3 Whether the Damache principle applies to the legality of arrest and detention in this case

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because the appellant had not raised the constitutional issue at trial or independently, and had expressly waived any challenge to the legality of his arrest and detention as part of his trial strategy. This conduct constituted acquiescence or waiver, precluding him from relying on the Damache declaration on appeal. The suggested point of law did not meet the threshold for certification under s.29 Courts of Justice Act 1924, as it lacked exceptional public importance and would not affect the ultimate disposal of the case.

Court Disposition

application rejected

Orders

  • Application for certificate to appeal to Supreme Court refused
  • Application to amend notice of appeal to rely on Damache point refused