Supreme Court allows appeal regarding lawfulness of detention, clarifying appellate jurisdiction limits from prior case.
Ireland (IE)
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe Supreme Court allowed the appeal against the detention of the applicant, agreeing with the Chief Justice on the lawfulness of the detention. The judgment clarifies that a specific passage from State (Browne) v Feran was misapplied in the earlier case of Re Zwann regarding the power to recommit erroneously released persons. The court decided to allow the appeal while noting the need for further consideration of the ambiguous citation in Zwann.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedState (Browne) v Feran; Re Zwann: The Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction to ensure recommittal of erroneously released persons does not apply to facts where no such error occurred, and prior case citations may be susceptible to misinterpretation.
Keywords
AI generatedCited Legislation
AI generatedCited Case Law
AI generatedFull text
[2001] IESC 91
THE SUPREME COURT
191/00
Keane C.J.
Murray J.
Hardiman J
Geoghegan J.
Fennelly J
BETWEEN
PHILIP CLARKE
APPLICANT/RESPONDENT
AND
THE MEMBER IN CHARGE OF TERENURE GARDA STATION
RESPONDENT/APPELLANT
JUDGMENT of FENNELLY J. delivered the 1st day of November, 2001.
1. I fully agree with the judgment which has been given by the Chief Justice, both as to the lawfulness of the detention of the
Applicant and as to the fact that the appeal should be allowed. I write very briefly only on the question of the mootness of the point
decided. Clearly any consideration of this issue is, in the context of the present appeal obiter. As the Chief Justice points out the
correctness of the decision of this Court in Re Zwann [1981] I.R. 395 was not argued. It would not be appropriate to deliver a
dissenting judgment.
2. It seems at least possible that the judgment in Zwann is susceptible to misunderstanding. The Chief Justice is undoubtedly correct
when he says that the passage quoted by him from page 169 of the judgment of Walsh J in State (Browne) v Feran [1967] I.R. 147
had no application to the facts which were before the court in Zwann. That passage deals with the power of the Court to ensure the
recommittal to detention of a person who has been erroneously released. No such question arose in Zwann. It is not clear, however,
that O’Higgins C.J., at page 401 of his judgment had that passage in mind, though it certainly commences on page 169, which is the
page citation given in the judgment. It seems to me that O’Higgins C.J. may have been referring to an earlier passage in the judgment
of Walsh J, where the latter learned judge had treated at length the proper appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the actual
point to which the judgment in Zwann was directed.
3. Whether the passage in Zwann is liable to misinterpretation - and admittedly the citation is ambiguous - the point of substance
remains. I agree that it merits considered treatment on another occasion. On that future occasion, it may be opportune to have
regard to the case of Condon v Minister for Labour [1981] I.R. 62.