DPP v McKevitt, Supreme Court of Ireland, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Judges

Ruling of the Court

See more information ...

Click here to read the full judgment

DPP v. McKevitt

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was convicted by the Special Criminal Court. The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed his appeal, and, pursuant to section 29 of the Courts of Justice Act 1924 (as amended), he brought a further appeal to the Supreme Court. On 30 July 2008 the Supreme Court (per Judge Geoghegan, concurred in by the other members of the Court) dismissed that appeal.

On 2 December 2008 the Appellant, by affidavit of his solicitor, applied to the Supreme Court to set aside its own judgment and to have the section 29 appeal re-heard. The present ruling—delivered by Judge Murray C.J. on 26 March 2009—addresses that application.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether, notwithstanding Article 34.4.6 of the Constitution (which declares Supreme Court decisions “final and conclusive”), the Court had jurisdiction to reopen and set aside its earlier decision.
If such exceptional jurisdiction potentially existed, whether the Appellant had discharged the heavy onus of demonstrating “exceptional circumstances” amounting to a denial of constitutional justice, thereby entitling him to a rehearing.
Whether an asserted factual error in the earlier judgment—namely, a reference to photographic evidence that did not in fact exist—rendered the conviction unsafe or the appellate process unfair.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The impugned judgment wrongly stated that the prosecution possessed photographic evidence showing the Appellant with a key witness. No such evidence existed or was tendered at trial.
The error originated in the Respondent’s written submissions; despite notice by the Appellant’s solicitor before the hearing, it was neither withdrawn nor corrected.
The presence of the error, if left unremedied, undermined public confidence and amounted to a breach of constitutional fair procedures justifying a rehearing.

Respondent's Arguments

The Respondent conceded that the reference to photographic evidence was erroneous.
However, the error was immaterial: the Garda surveillance sightings (not the alleged photographs) underpinned both the prosecution’s position at trial and the appellate court’s reasoning.
No prejudice resulted to the Appellant; therefore no exceptional circumstances existed that could empower the Court to reopen its final judgment.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Tassan Din v Banco Ambrosiano S.P.A. [1991] I.R. 569	Judgment obtained by fraud is a nullity and may be set aside without infringing Article 34.4.6.	Distinguished; the present case did not involve fraud but an immaterial factual error.
Kenny v The University (Supreme Court, 10 Apr 2008, unreported)	Clarifies that fraud-based nullity does not constitute an exception to constitutional finality.	Cited to show the limited scope of exceptions to finality.
P v P (Supreme Court, 31 Jul 2001, unreported)	Summarises circumstances in which the Supreme Court may revisit a final order to protect constitutional justice.	Formed the principal framework for assessing “exceptional circumstances.”
Greendale case (referenced in P v P)	Recognises a narrow jurisdiction to rescind a final order where a fundamental breach of fair procedures occurred.	Relied upon to define the heavy onus resting on an applicant.
Bula Ltd v Tara Mines (Supreme Court, 3 Jul 2000, unreported)	Confirms that only “a high degree of exceptional” circumstances justify reopening a final judgment.	Re-affirmed the stringent threshold.
Andrews Productions Ltd v Gaiety Theatre Enterprises Ltd [1973] I.R. 295	Illustrates absolute statutory bars to Supreme Court jurisdiction (s. 39 Courts of Justice Act 1936).	Used analogically to explain when the Court must summarily refuse manifestly unfounded applications.
Clohessy v Clohessy (Supreme Court, 31 Jul 2008, unreported)	Emphasises the Registrar’s entitlement to refuse filings that are clearly outside jurisdiction.	Cited on the practice of summary refusal.
Philp v Ryan & Ors (Supreme Court, 18 Jan 2005, unreported)	Example of the Court summarily refusing an application that was manifestly ill-founded.	Analogous justification for refusing a hearing on the merits here.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

1. Constitutional Finality. Article 34.4.6 renders Supreme Court decisions final. While case-law recognises a narrow inherent jurisdiction to revisit a judgment, that jurisdiction arises only in “most exceptional circumstances,” narrowly confined to fundamental breaches of constitutional justice.

2. Threshold Inquiry. The Court first examined whether the application, on its face, disclosed objectively sufficient grounds to invoke this exceptional jurisdiction. The Court stressed that mere disagreement with the merits or a minor inaccuracy could not suffice.

3. The Alleged Factual Error. The only ground relied upon was an incorrect statement that the Garda possessed photographic evidence of the Appellant with a witness. The Respondent admitted this was wrong. The Court analysed the earlier judgment and found:

The Garda had personally observed the Appellant with the witness; the appellate reasoning centred on those observations, not on any photographs.
The contested passage concerned merely the prosecution’s state of mind when disclosure was delayed, not the substantive evidence of guilt.
The decisive appellate finding—that late disclosure caused no actual unfairness because the defence declined an offer to recall the witness—was wholly independent of whether photographs existed.

4. No Prejudice Shown. Given the above, the Court found it “absurd” to suggest that the error affected the outcome of the appeal or the safety of the conviction.

5. Summary Disposition. Because the application was “manifestly unfounded,” the Court exercised its discretion to refuse it summarily without oral hearing, consistent with precedents such as Philp v Ryan.

Holding and Implications

APPLICATION REFUSED.

The Supreme Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to reopen its prior judgment because the Appellant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances amounting to a denial of constitutional justice. The decision leaves the original dismissal of the section 29 appeal intact. No new legal precedent was created; the ruling reinforces the stringent threshold for disturbing the finality of Supreme Court decisions.