List of Irish Supreme Court cases explained

This is a partial list of cases decided by the Supreme Court of Ireland, the highest court in the Republic of Ireland. The list is organized chronologically within areas of law.

Constitutional

Case name	Citation	Summary
State (Burke) v Lennon	[1940] IR 135	Imprisonment without trial; habeas corpus
Sinn Féin Funds case (Buckley and Others v the Attorney-General and Another)	[1950] IR 67	Separation of powers and right to property
McGee v The Attorney General	[1974 IR 284], [1973] IESC 2 | Right to privacy in marital affairs; ability to import contraceptives|-| Norris v Attorney General| [1983 IESC 3], [1984] IR 36 | Decriminalization of homosexuality|-| Crotty v An Taoiseach| [1987 IESC 4]| Ratification of the Single European Act and external state sovereignty|-|-| Attorney General v X| [1992 IESC 1]; [1992] 1 IR 1| Termination of pregnancy where there is risk to the mother including suicide.|-|-| In re Article 26 and the Regulation of Information (Services outside the State for Termination of Pregnancies) Bill 1995| [1995 IESC 9], [1995] 1 IR 1 | Natural law supersedes positive law.|-| O'C(P) v DPP (2000)| 3 IR 87; 2000 IESC 58|Examined the conditions under which a substantial delay can be ruled to result in an unfair trial.|-|De Roiste v Minister for Defence|[2001] 1 IR 190; [2001 IESC 4]; [2001] 2 ILRM 241|The Court held that the extended delay (three decades in this case) in bringing forward an action was grounds for dismissal of the action.|-|Ardagh v Maguire|[2002 IESC 21]; [2002] 1 IR 385|The Court ruled that the holding of an inquiry concerning the case of a fatal shooting of a member of An Garda Síochána by the Houses of the Oireachtas was an ultra vires act.|-| Dunne v Donohoe| [2002 IESC 35], [2002] 2 IR 533| Possession and security arrangements of firearms|-|P.M. v District Judge Miriam Malone and the Director of Public Prosecutions|[2002 IESC 46]|Barred prosecution of an individual due to an inordinate delay.|-| The Health (amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2004|[2005 IESC 7]| The right of a person to recover property can determine the constitutionality of a bill|-|Dekra Eireann Teo v Minister of Environment|[2003] 2 IR 270; [2003] 2 ILRM 210; [2003 IESC 25]|A key feature of both European law and court rules is the policy of urgency.|-|Kelly v Trinity College Dublin|[2007 IESC 61]|Former employments or associations are insufficient to disqualify a person from participating in disciplinary or similar tribunals related to that former employment.|-| Roche v Roche| [2009 IESC 82]| Frozen embryos are not considered "unborn" in the context of the Constitution of Ireland.|-|Meadows v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform|[2010 IESC 3]; [2010] 2 IR 701; [2011] 2 ILRM 157|The proportionality test should be used when reviewing administrative actions that implicate fundamental rights protected by both the Irish Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.|-|Damache v DPP|[2012 IESC 11]; [2012] 13 ILRM 153; [2012] 2 IR 266|The Supreme Court held that any search warrant issued by a person who is associated with the investigation was invalid.|-|Benedict McGowan and Others v Labour Court and Others|[2013] 2 ILRM 276; [2013 IESC 21]; [2013] 3 IR 718| Provisions of Part III of the Industrial Relations Act are invalid considering the provisions of Article 15.2.1 of the Constitution of Ireland.|-|John Gilligan v Ireland & Others|[2013 IESC 45]; [2013] 2 IR 745; [2014] ILRM 153|Section 13 of the Criminal Law Act 1976 allows judges to apply the principle of proportionality in sentencing.|-|Roche (also known as Dumbrell) v Governor of Cloverhill Prison| [2014] IESC 53|The Court decided that the Bail Act of 1997 is not a code that explains all the rules about the law on bail.|-| Vincent Sweeney v Governor of Loughlan House Open Centre and Others| [2014] 2 ILRM 401; [2014 IESC 42]; [2014] 2 IR 732| A sentence being served in the administering state must be of the same legal nature as imposed in the sentencing state.|-|Bederev v Ireland| [2016 IESC 34]; [2016] 3 IR 1; [2016] 2 ILRM 340| A government decision to expand the list of controlled drugs did not infringe on the authority of the Oireachtas|-|O'Farrell and Others v Governor of Portlaoise Prison| [2016 IESC 37]|Identified a problem in the way the Irish prison system carried out prison sentences handed down by courts in other countries.|-|O'Connell & anor v The Turf Club|[2015 IESC 57]; [2017] 2 IR 43| Organizational body of a sport is subject to judicial review even if the body was not created by statute.|-|B S v The Director of Public Prosecutions| [2017] IESCDET 134| The Supreme Court “is no longer a Court for the correction of error but rather a Court which has the principal constitutional task of determining issues of general importance.”^[1] |-|Grace and anor v An Bórd Pleanála & ors|[2017 IESC 10]|Clarified the criteria for standing (sufficient connection to support participation in a case) in relation to judicial review of environmental concerns.|-|Hickey v McGowan & ors|[2017] IESC 6||-|Damache v Minister for Justice|[2021] IESC 6|Clarified revocation of citizenship was not an aspect of the judicial power constitutionally reserved to the judicial branch, but an executive power|-|Heneghan v Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government & Ors|[2023] IESC 7|Confirmed the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution mandated the Oireachtas to expand the franchise for Seanad elections|} Criminal Case name Citation Summary Melling v O'Mathghamhna http://ie.vlex.com/vid/melling-v-mathghamhna-802440409,[1962] IR 1 Restated Elements of a Criminal Offence Attorney General v Oldridge [2000 IESC 29]; [2000] 4 IR 593| Establishing a corresponding offense for extradition; definition of fraud|-| Murphy v GM | http://ie.vlex.com/vid/murphy-v-gm-793965005, [2001] IESC 82 | Affirmed the constitutional validity of the Irish Criminal Assets Bureau (See also Gilligan v Criminal Assets Bureau https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5da0496d4653d07dedfd4ac1https://www.irishtimes.com/news/gilligan-challenge-to-constitutionality-of-criminal-assets-bureau-act-fails-1.85655)|-| Blood v DPP| [2005 IESC 8]| Confirmed that a right to an expeditious trial is implied in the right to a fair trial under Irish law.|-|DPP v Cronin (No. 2)|[2006 IESC 9]; [2006] 4 IR 329|An "error or oversight of substance" must exhibited before a court would permit a new point to be raised on appeal.|-|A v Governor of Arbour Hill Prison|[2006 IESC 45]|A finding that criminal legislation is unconstitutional need not render existing convictions void.|-|McFarlane v Director of Public Prosecutions|[2008] IESC 7; [2008] 4 IR 117|The right to a fair trial does not preclude prosecution in cases of prosecutorial delay unless the accused can demonstrate specific prejudice or that the delay was outside the norm.|-|Brian Rattigan v DPP|[2008 IESC 34]|A criminal trial would be prohibited where prosecutorial delay or adverse pre-trial publicity created a substantial risk of unfairness to the accused.|-|McNulty v DPP|[2009 IESC 12]; [2009] 3 IR 572|The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts and decided that the question of Judicial Review was not to be dealt with by the Supreme Court.|-|DPP v McLoughlin|[2009 IESC 65]|The admissibility of hearsay evidence for bail applications|-|Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Dolny|[2009 IESC 48]|The court found that a European extradition can be applied if the offense is very similar to an offense in Irish law.|-|Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Stafford|[2009 IESC 83]|A warrant which is based on circumstantial evidence can be enforced even if the participation of the defendant is only suspected to have taken place in the crime.|-|Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Murphy|[2010 IESC 17]| Expanded the meaning of "detention order"|-|Director of Public Prosecutions v Pat Hegarty|[2011 IESC 32]|Officers/key employees involved in anti-competitive practices may be prosecuted for their involvement, regardless of whether the undertaking itself has been prosecuted.|-|Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform v Bailey| [2012 IESC 16]| Clarified the grounds under which a person could be extradited for a European Arrest Warrant.|-|Callan v Ireland & The Attorney General|[2013 IESC 35]; [2013] IR 267; [2013] ILRM 257|Clarified the relationship between commutation and a sentence of imprisonment in the context of an appeal for early release.|-|Roche (Also Known as Dumbrell) v Governor of Cloverhill Prison| [2014] IESC 53|The Court held that the Bail Act 1997 is not a code providing an exhaustive statement regarding the law on bail.|-|DPP v Peter Cullen|[2014 IESC 7], [2014] 3 IR 30|Addressed the routine practice of the Garda Síochána of placing handcuffs after an arrest for drink driving.|-|Thomas Murphy v Ireland and Others|[2014 IESC 19]; [2014] 1 ILRM 457; [2014] 1 IR 198|The Director of Public Prosecutions failing to provide reasons for the issuing of a certificate under Section 42(6) of the Offences against the State Act 1939 was not repugnant to the Constitution.|-| O'Farrell v Governor of Portlaoise Prison|[2016] IESC 37, [2016] 3 R 619|The Irish state was found to be unable to implement sentencing in accord with the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Act 1995.|} Family

Notes and References

1. Web site: Supreme Court of Ireland, 2018 Annual Report . 2020-05-15 . 2019-12-21 . https://web.archive.org/web/20191221193853/http://www.supremecourt.ie/supremecourt/sclibrary3.nsf/(WebFiles)/721D16DCC8DE6F45802583B00037C20A/$FILE/2018%20Supreme%20Court%20Annual%20Report.pdf . live .