By: Ciaran Joyce BL, on May 17th, 2012

DPP v Buck [2012] IECCA 109 (Court of Criminal Appeal, O'Donnell J, 20 October 2011)

Court of Criminal Appeal: a) grants an order extending time to apply for a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court; but b) refuses certificate, on grounds that issue of refusal to adduce new evidence was not a point of law of exceptional public importance.

Criminal law – appeal from conviction from murder and arson – s.29 of the Courts of Justice Act 1924 – point of law of exceptional public importance – application to adduce evidence on appeal – test of materiality in Willoughby/O’Regan – admissibility of fresh evidence relating to events which occurred during the trial – accused had been himself a witness in a case in which the judge had been a defence counsel almost 10 years earlier – ground of appeal was that it was contended that the trial judge ought to have recused himself from the trial – evidence unlikely to have an important or material effect on the outcome of the case.

 

Quotation from judgment (courtesy of the Courts Service of Ireland):

“In this case however the parties engaged very fully on the merits of the underlying points of objective bias and prejudicial publicity, and argued them in some detail. Having considered these arguments, the Court came to the conclusion that the points raised were at best flimsy, with or without the new evidence and accordingly that the outcome of the case would not be altered by the admission of the evidence. On that basis the Court considered that it was obliged to refuse the application to admit the new evidence. The applicant may well consider that this was an overly rigorous application of the Willoughby test, and even an erroneous conclusion. But that in itself is not a ground to grant the certificate under s.29. The Applicant remains free to argue the original grounds on his application for leave to appeal but this Court does not consider that the issue raised is a point of exceptional public importance which could justify an appeal to the Supreme Court. In those circumstances the Court will extend the time for the bringing of this application, but will refuse the application for the s.29 certificate.”

Full Text on Court Services Website>

Key Cases Cited

Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489
Murphy v The Minister for Defence [1991] 2 IR 161
Willoughby v DPP [2005] IE CCA 4
Lynagh v Mackin [1970] IR 180
The People (DPP) v O’Regan [2007] 3 IR 805