#17460 - Constitutional Rights The Right To A Fair Trial - Constitutional Rights

Unenumerated personal rights 38.1 Trial in due course of law • Rights of suspects • All judges accept that these rights apply to earlier stages too, for ex. with warrants, etc. • Access to solicitors - prominent issue since 1970s - what are the limits when someone is detained in garda stations? • Since mid-80s, increasing provisions passed allowed for conclusions to be drawn from silence • Gardai infer something from silence? They've always been allowed to do this. This isn't the question - it's about the judges drawing inferences at trial What does it mean? ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ Every criminal trial shall be conducted in accordance with the concept in justice procedurally fair respect for individual dignity Don't have to be an individual human being Every opportunity for defence State Healy v Donoghue Two young offenders In DC not told by judge were entitled to apply for legal aid and trail went ahead w/out this application. Went to SC and they said this was unfair as they weren't aware of entitlement to have a lawyer THE SCOPE • • • • Any criminal charge (in any court) Minor & serious irrelevant Fine/ imprisonment therefore irrelevant NO PERSON - citizen irrelevant FAIR PROCEDURE • Usually the conduct of the trial - may bar prosecution (eg delay) • Defences • May take CONTEXT into account (Definition of offence or type of investigation) - wording etc may act as a defence under article • Lately, SC says only in exceptional circumstances will the person not actually be put on trial • Often when accused fail at this, they'll plead guilty. • 38.1 not limited to fairness due to the exclusionary rule > unconst. obtained evidence Court • Only if court is independent: Eccles (separation of powers) • SCC - even though const. says it doesn't have to contain judges, it can't include anyone in any other branch. • Unbiased: Singer accused of fraud with investors and stamps. He obtained money and placed on trial and the first conviction was quashed based on the fact one of the jury members were a victim of the conduct and therefore couldn't have been impartial • Court must be validly and legally constituted at the time the trial took place: Shelly v Mahon Judge Mahon incorrectly stated D.O.B when applying, so he sat in court after the age of 65 - automatically ceased to be a DC judge. Parliament retrospectively passed leg. To validate his convictions. They tried to extend it to criminal trials and this was not allowed. CHARGE • Must meet certain requirements • Offence must exist in law: Edge Accused charged w/ kidnapping - removing a girl from parents custody w.out their consent however SHE gave consent and this wasn't theoretically a valid charge • Must be defined clearly and precisely to the accused - must look at definition of offence and decide accordingly • Double jeopardy - can't be tried twice for the same charge (statute now for CA to re-open a case if there's a new evidence that wasn't initially available that could render t unfair) King v AG Considered Vagueness. Loitering with intent to commit a felony SC said it was 'arbitrary', 'vague' and 'ambiguous in failing to distinguish between apparent and real behaviour of a criminal nature' The person must clearly know what they should and should not do under the law on a particular occasion. - 'a person may be convicted…only if the ingredients of, and the acts constituting, the offence are specified with precision and clarity' Cagney Hardiman J: ' a citizen should know or at least be able to find out, with some considerable measure of certainty, what precisely is prohibited and what is lawful' Douglas Recognised that absolute clarity is not always possible - statues including ambiguous words like 'reasonable' etc. Hogan J: - 'absolute precision is not possible… perfectly general laws which can be adapted…' Dokie - 'Every non-national shall produce on demand… a valid passport or other equivalent document'. Unless they give a satisfactory explanation as to why not HC applied king and said this was arbitrary - any individual of gardai - too much discretion to them. The court said if objective standards Douglas Man in terrace of a café watching female by passers rubbing himself ????????? s.18 of criminal law amendment act - 'every person who shall commit, at or near and inside of any place along which public habitually pass as of right or by permission any act in such a way as to…cause scandal or injure the morals of the community shall be guilty of an offence' Said public car a public place. Hogan J: This idea of an act in such a way to cause scandal was too vague. - 'Lacked any clear principles and policies' Limitations on the vagueness doctrine • Case law may have given a definition to broad terms • Defining an offence in terms of people's 'reasonable' reactions to the accused behaviour may pass muster GATHERING OF EVIDENCE • Evidence can't be heard if rights of accused violated unless in extraordinary circumsatnces • Exclusion remedies breach of the accused rights: Kenny • P's confession in unlawful custody 'out' even if it was voluntary: Healy. Even if you voluntary confess to something, your trial can be quashed for unlawful detention GARDAI TREATMENT OF ARRESTED/ ACCUSED • 38.1 no 'involuntary' confession admissible; NIB < case said that this is constitutional and cannot be changed by legislation. • Can't be oppressive to get a confession: Cummins < where otherwise the person wouldn't have. Oppression? Denying them sleep, food etc. depriving them deliberately. • Confession deemed involuntary if made by way of threat for example to family/ bail/ leniency • Inducements will render a confession involuntary (about trial etc. seducing them by using the law or processes) • Right to fair procedure • Lying to an accused to get a confession doesn't per se render it involuntary. • However, you could argue it to be a threat Is suspect entitled to have spoken to a lawyer BEFORE questioning and what terms can the interview be paused DPP v Gormley SC 6 march 2014 Const - right to consult a lawyer BEFORE questioning occurs - gardai entitled to let you know this and give you opportunity and - you can interrupt at whatever intervals necessary to consult w/ your lawyers Doesn't apply to forensic samples Suggested that in future the court could decide that - In future - Lawyer present during the questioning This is the law in America and an EU directive also > UK and Ireland opted out of this. As soon as you're arrested, fairness applies - 'broad concept of constitutional fairness in the criminal process' - 'Right to legal advice before interrogation is an important constitutional entitlement of high legal value' - exceptions may be v. limited - Inappropriate influence on suspect by gardai must be guarded against. - Reasonable access to legal aid includes access before questioning confirmed ACCESS BY STATUTE • Q can't begin until after chance to consult solicitor • Up to three hours added on to detention period to allow for the delay in obtaining a lawyer. • Limited exception in urgent cases DPP V Barry Doyle 18 Jan 2017 Murder of Shane Geogheghan in limerick. Got Boyle to admit to murder after many hours of detention. He relied on grounds that const. entitlement to have a lawyer present was breached. 4 of the SC judges: - No constitutional right to have a lawyer in the interview room when beig questioned. 'at this time' After this, department of justice anticipated the SC might decide in future that this could be a right and ordered the Gardai to allow for this McKechnie There is a right and it was breached here and Doyle's appeal should succeed J? • Argument that the Gardai clearly didn't know of this right even if there was one. O'Malley Not relevant to decide in this case. Her view hard to determine. Clarke J Gave lead judgement in Gormley but wasn't present at this case - relevance? - Not absolutely ruled out. Unclear on grounds ^^^^^^ Majority reasoning Charleton J - Ample safeguards already