The Supreme Court has been asked to rule that the pending trial of Jerry Hatch and former Sinn Féin councilor Jonathan Daudal in a non-jury trial at the Special Criminal Court (SCC) is illegal.
The Supreme Court of the Five Judges heard that he was because the SCC was effectively a permanent court if the relevant law provided only temporary.
The argument was appealed to a High Court ruling in which two men charged with murder dismissed their objection to the SCC.
The High Court has determined that temporary / permanent discussions are a political issue and therefore cannot be justified by the court. If the decision to continue the SCC was made without malicious intent, or without Malafide, the court could not intervene and it was also discovered.
Hatch (58) expelled from Spain and former Dublin City Council member Daudal (44) on Navan Road, Dublin, are charged with killing David Byrne (33) at a Regency Hotel in Dublin on February 5, 2016. it was done. They deny the charges.
Michael O’Higgins SC was submitted on behalf of Mr. Dowdall and provided under the first enacted 1939 state law violation if the court determined that the SCC was functioning as a permanent court. Claimed to be functioning outside the scope of the granted authority. setting.
He also said that if the government and Dáil are obliged to continue to consider the role of the SCC and the obligation is not exempted, the courts are acting outside of their authority.
It doesn’t matter how long it takes to become permanent, but it’s been about 50 years since the current SCC was proclaimed, but it doesn’t work temporarily and is a permanent court. It has been transformed into “extended mode”. “.” He said.
Brendan Grehan SC, in Mr. Hatch’s position, alleged that the executive branch and the state misinterpreted a law granting a jury trial denial of the right to a trial. He said it was unacceptable for the Supreme Court to waive court jurisdiction to intervene in the final decision on the meaning of the law.
Patrick Gageby SC of the Irish Human Rights Equality Commission, who was granted permission to participate in the appeal as Amicus Curiae (a friend of the court), declared his client’s substantive concern (SCC setting) that the government said It was purely political as long as it had a genuine opinion that it was unforgivable.
The Commission has submitted that it is completely legitimate and cannot limit the court’s review power.
Gageby also said the question of whether ordinary courts were inadequate for the trial of a particular crime was “very factual”, not a matter of high policy or national sovereignty.
He also said there was also the issue of legal protection of jury trials in situations where ordinary jury trials were not considered appropriate. It is noteworthy that over the last 50 years, there has been little change in the legislative provisions regarding the protection and support of jury trials to prevent them from being adversely affected.
Remy Farrell SC, in the position of DPP and Minister of Justice, acknowledged the unusual nature and structure of the provisions governing SCC and said it would allow its own initiation based on the circumstances at the time.
In relation to the jury trial’s intimidation issue, the relevant criterion is not whether there is intimidation, but whether ordinary courts are appropriate for a particular crime. He said the question of whether SCC reviews were needed or how often they should be done was a purely political decision.
Shane Murphy SC, speaking in the position of Oireachtas, the Attorney General, and Ireland, stated that Section 35.5 of State Law Violations gives Oireachtas the right to pass a resolution to invalidate the SCC if deemed necessary. There was no evidence, but Oireachtas failed to meet its obligations in this regard, and in fact there was no attempt to invalidate it, he said.
Judge Donal O’Donnell said the court reserved the decision.