Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
IESC 51 ECLI:IE:SC:2005:51 AI generated

Supreme Court allows appeal where arrest under s.30 requires more than a superior's order.

Case Number IESC 51
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Ireland (IE)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal for Anselm Walshe while dismissing the appeal for Kay Bedford. The court held that an arrest under s.30 of the Offences against the State Act, 1939, requires reasonable suspicion founded on something more than a mere order from a superior officer. The arresting Garda must possess an understanding of the underlying rationale or basis for the arrest to satisfy the statutory requirement.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

s.30 of the Offences against the State Act, 1939; An arrest under this section must be founded on reasonable suspicion which requires an element beyond a bare order from a superior officer.

Keywords

AI generated
power of arrest reasonable suspicion superior order Offences against the State Act section 30 arrest

Cited Legislation

AI generated
s. 30 of the Offences against the State Act, 1939
pursuant to s. 30 of the Offences against the State Act, 1939, the suspicion which the arresting Garda member is required to have in
State Act, 1939
30 of the Offences against the State Act, 1939, the suspicion which the arresting Garda member is required to have in

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

THE SUPREME COURT

Murray C.J.

Geoghegan J.

Kearns J.

221 & 222/04

BETWEEN

ANSELM JOSEPH WALSHE AND KAY BEDFORD

PLAINTIFFS / RESPONDENTS

-v-

ANTHONY FENNESSY

FIRST NAMED DEFENDANT / APPELLANT

AND THOMAS A. SLOYAN, THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH AND FIFTH NAMED

DEFENDANTS / APPELLANTS

The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice John L. Murray on the 28th day of July, 2005

1. I agree that the appeal against the order of the High Court in the case of Ms. Kay Bedford should be dismissed for the reasons set

out in the judgment of Kearns J. I also agree with Kearns J. and Geoghegan J. that the appeal in the case of Mr. Anselm Walshe

should be allowed.

2. With regard to the latter case I simply wish to add that I agree with Geoghegan J. that in the exercise of a power of arrest

pursuant to s. 30 of the Offences against the State Act, 1939, the suspicion which the arresting Garda member is required to have in

order to effect such an arrest must be founded on something more than a mere order of a superior to carry out that arrest. The fact

that such an order is given to a garda member by a superior officer is a fact that may be taken into account in determining whether

the arresting officer had grounds for a reasonable suspicion but there must be some other element than a bare order to carry out the

arrest. Such an element was present in this particular case as pointed out in the judgments of my colleagues. In order to form the

requisite suspicion required by s. 30 the arresting officer must have some understanding of the underlying rationale or basis for the

arrest. This is not an unduly onerous requirement, for example, the fact that a Garda member was informed by a superior officer that

there were reliable intelligence reports indicating that the person to be arrested may be involved in the commission of an offence to

which s. 30 relates could ground a reasonable suspicion for an arrest. Mr. Justice Geoghegan has given other examples of what such a

further element could comprise and I agree with him in that regard.