Donnelly -v- Judges of Dublin Metropolitan District Court & ors [2015] IEHC 125 (03 March 2015)

Donnelly -v- Judges of Dublin Metropolitan District Court & ors [2015] IEHC 125 (03 March 2015)

Section 9(6) of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act 1990 does not create an offence nor shift the legal burden of proof; it permissibly shifts only an evidential burden, is proportionate, rationally connected to the legislative objective, and is not arbitrary or oppressive. The provision is not unconstitutional...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] IEHC 125
Parties
Applicant: Shane Donnelly; First Respondent: Judges of Dublin Metropolitan District Court; Second Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondents: Ireland and the Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
03 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment on Application for Prohibition and Declarations
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Right to Silence, Presumption of Innocence, Reverse Onus Provisions, Proportionality, Interpretation of Statutes
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Human Rights Right to Silence Presumption of Innocence Reverse Onus Provisions Proportionality Interpretation of Statutes

Source-derived case record

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 27 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shane Donnelly

Applicant

Judges of Dublin Metropolitan District Court

First Respondent

Director of Public Prosecutions

Second Respondent

Ireland and the Attorney General

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment on Application for Prohibition and Declarations

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.9(6) of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act 1990 is unconstitutional for infringing the right to silence and the right to trial in due course of law under Articles 38.1 and 40.4.1 of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether s.9(6) is incompatible with the State's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights
  3. 3 Whether the provision is impermissibly vague or disproportionate

Ratio Decidendi

Section 9(6) of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act 1990 does not create an offence nor shift the legal burden of proof; it permissibly shifts only an evidential burden, is proportionate, rationally connected to the legislative objective, and is not arbitrary or oppressive. The provision is not unconstitutional or incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for prohibition and declarations refused
  • No order as to constitutional or ECHR incompatibility