Director of Public Prosecutions v JC AND MC

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from the acquittal by direction of the trial Judge of two respondents charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice following a murder investigation in County Tipperary on 17th October 2017. The respondents, brothers referred to as Respondent JC and Respondent MC, along with a third brother, were charged in connection with the investigation. Key prosecution witnesses included MA, the partner of Respondent JC, and KF, the long-term partner of Respondent MC. Both witnesses had given statements implicating the respondents in efforts to pervert justice by providing false alibis or withholding information from the Gardaí.

During the trial, the evidence of MA and KF was challenged on the basis that they were not compellable witnesses under the Criminal Evidence Act 1992 due to their relationships with the respondents. The trial Judge ruled their evidence inadmissible and consequently directed the jury to acquit both respondents. The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) appealed, initially with prejudice, seeking to quash the acquittals and order retrials. However, as both witnesses had since married their respective partners, the appeal was pursued without prejudice. The case returned to the Circuit Court Judge for clarification of the rationale behind the exclusion of the witnesses' evidence.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether a partner in a long-term, non-marital relationship is a compellable witness under the Criminal Evidence Act 1992.
2. Whether the statutory protection for spouses as non-compellable witnesses extends to relationships outside of formal marriage, such as civil partnerships or cohabitation.
3. Whether the trial Judge erred in excluding the evidence of witnesses who were partners but not married to the accused at the time of trial.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments (Director of Public Prosecutions)

• The trial Judge erroneously excluded compelling evidence by ruling that the witnesses were not compellable due to their relationship with the respondents.
• The exclusion of such evidence led to the acquittal of the respondents, which the DPP sought to overturn through appeal and retrial orders.
• Although initially a with prejudice appeal, the DPP agreed to proceed without prejudice after the witnesses married their partners, affecting the practicality of a retrial.

Respondents' Arguments

• The witnesses, as long-term partners and mothers of the respondents' children, should be regarded as non-compellable witnesses under the Criminal Evidence Act 1992.
• Objection was raised to the admissibility of the witnesses' evidence pursuant to section 21 of the Criminal Evidence Act 1992.
• Respondents contended that the trial Judge's ruling on the inadmissibility of the evidence was correct and justified.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court examined the statutory language of the Criminal Evidence Act 1992, focusing on the term "spouse," which it found to be limited to legally married persons. The Court noted that the Act does not extend the non-compellability privilege to partners in long-term, non-marital relationships, including civil partnerships or cohabitation. This interpretation was supported by authoritative texts and case law, including the European Court of Human Rights decision in Van Der Keijden v. The Netherlands, which upheld the distinction between formal marriages and informal partnerships for testimonial privilege purposes.

The Court further observed that the legislature had not amended the Criminal Evidence Act 1992 in light of the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010, despite its comprehensive scope. This legislative silence was interpreted as an intentional exclusion of non-marital relationships from the statutory protections afforded spouses.

The Court acknowledged arguments for extending testimonial privilege to informal long-term relationships but emphasized that such policy decisions lie within the legislative domain, not the judiciary's role in statutory interpretation. Consequently, the Court concluded that the trial Judge correctly ruled the evidence of the witnesses inadmissible under the existing statutory framework.

Holding and Implications

The Court held that under the Criminal Evidence Act 1992, the term "spouse" applies exclusively to legally married persons and does not extend to partners in long-term, non-marital relationships, including civil partnerships or cohabitation. Therefore, no other relationships are amenable to the non-compellability provisions of the Act.

DISPOSED OF

The direct effect of this decision is the affirmation of the trial Judge's exclusion of the witnesses' evidence and the consequent acquittals. The Court did not set any new precedent beyond statutory interpretation and emphasized that any extension of testimonial privilege to non-marital partners is a matter for the legislature. No retrial was ordered due to changes in the witnesses' marital status and evidentiary considerations.