S39 Burke v Ireland and the Attorney Genaral & Ors [2016] IESC 39 (12 July 2016)


BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Supreme Court of Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Ireland Decisions >> Burke v Ireland and the Attorney Genaral & Ors [2016] IESC 39 (12 July 2016)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2016/S39.html
Cite as: [2016] IESC 39

[New search] [Help]


Judgment
Title:
Burke v Ireland and the Attorney Genaral & Ors
Neutral Citation:
[2016] IESC 39
Supreme Court Record Number:
475/2009
High Court Record Number:
2009 8712 P
Date of Delivery:
 12/07/2016
Court:
Supreme Court
Composition of Court:
Denham C.J., O'Donnell Donal J., Clarke J.
Judgment by:
Denham C.J.
Status:
Approved
Result:
Appeal dismissed
Judgments by
Link to Judgment
Concurring
Denham C.J.
O'Donnell Donal J., Clarke J.


THE SUPREME COURT
Appeal No. 475/2009

Denham C.J.
O’Donnell J.
Clarke J.

      Between/
John Gerard Anthony Burke
Plaintiff/Appellant
and

Ireland and the Attorney General and Others



Defendants/Respondents

Judgment of the Court delivered on the 12th day of July, 2016 by Denham C.J.

1. This is an appeal by John Gerard Anthony Burke, the plaintiff/appellant, referred to as “the appellant”, from the refusal by the High Court (Hedigan J.) on the 9th October, 2009, to grant a stay on proceedings in the District Court.

2. In a note of the judgment the learned High Court judge stated:-

      “I read through the papers submitted to me by the applicant in this matter, i.e. the plenary summons, the affidavit and the notice of motion.

      The plaintiff seemed to be seeking:-


        (1) An order staying the proceedings against himself in the District Court whilst he challenges their constitutionality in the High Court. He claims the Acts under which he is being prosecuted are not properly Irish law. His reasons for this are a mixture of complaints about the Lisbon II Referendum and generally European law or regulations holding primacy over Irish law.

        He wanted his action heard today. The State objected to going on today as it is present here on very short notice. I refused to stay the proceedings today and refused to hear the action today. I advised him to clarify in his plenary summons exactly what he was looking for as it was very difficult to ascertain this.

        (2) Some form of order protecting him against the order of Hamilton D.J. directing he receive psychiatric care while in prison as opposed to psychiatric assessment. He considered this to be a threat to his life. I considered the above order did not constitute any threat to his life as he claimed and might indeed have been of assistance to him and therefore I made no order in this regard either …

        In the result, the only order I made was one reserving the costs of this application to be costs in the action.”

3. The appellant has appealed this decision.

4. The only issue before the Court on this appeal is whether the learned High Court judge was correct in refusing a stay.

5. The appellant also brought a motion to adduce additional evidence. The appellant grounds this motion by way of an affidavit sworn by him on the 8th April, 2016. He deposes that the proceedings are as far on today as they were twelve years ago, that there has been no conviction for cruelty to any animals. He still seeks a stay or injunction. To explain matters further he enclosed some affidavits and exhibits.

6. On behalf of the defendants/respondents, referred to as “the State”, an affidavit was filed by Paul Fitzpatrick, State Solicitor for County Tipperary (S.R.). As the appellant objected to this affidavit, the Court did not consider it.

7. The Court has considered the documents filed on behalf of the appellant. In addition, the Court has considered the oral submissions made by the appellant and those made on behalf of the State.

8. In this case the appellant sought a stay on criminal prosecutions. A stay on a criminal prosecution is a matter which the Court treats very seriously. It is a fundamental requirement that there be an arguable case in such circumstances. It would be wrong to restrain a criminal prosecution on the basis of an assertion as to unconstitutionality of a statute or European Regulation. A bare assertion of unconstitutionality is insufficient to ground such an application. It is necessary to establish a significant argument as to a basis for such an order, which the appellant failed to do. In the circumstances of this case, it would have been improper to stay a criminal trial.

9. Consequently, the Court is satisfied that there was no error by the learned High Court Judge, and it would dismiss the appeal.











BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2016/S39.html