Court Precedent and Hirearchy

GM228

My query here is more specifically related to the Special Criminal Court but I haven't specifically stated that in the title in case it expands.

I'm curious about precedent in relation to the SCC, my understanding is that the SCC isn't subject to precedent, but I'm wondering can it set precedent to lower courts?

Also my understanding is the SCC is technically an inferior court but where would it stand on the hierarchy chart, in other words rather than actually being an inferior court is it not a considered an equal court with the High Court?

If so and the SCC can set precedent to lower courts does that mean the HC would not over rule SCC rulings but rather define SCC rulings?

Steve

My understanding of it is SCC can appeal to CCS and then Supreme. HC would be an equivalent so neither an appeal nor precedent option.

Precedent is not codified in law and is a judges prerogative.

GM228

Steve wrote: »

My understanding of it is SCC can appeal to CCS and then Supreme. HC would be an equivalent so neither an appeal nor precedent option.

Precedent is not codified in law and is a judges prerogative.

Precedent is not prerogative (persuasive rulings are-as in lower courts rulings are persuasive to higher courts), lower courts are bound by higher court rulings as per the Constitution and several High Court and Supreme court rulings such as McDonnell vs Byrne Engineering Co Ltd 1978, State (Harkin) vs O’Malley 1978, Irish Shell v Elm Motors 1984, O’B vs Patwell 1994 and many more.

I know the SCC is exempt from following precedent, just not sure of it's status in relation to setting precedent.

Steve

Ok.

MarkAnthony

The person that sets you homework is a real...

I'm not sure setting precedent is a particularly big issue for the SCC - don't they generally work within a fairly limited set of legislation? I don't believe the decisions are published. Also what's the basis for saying they are not bound by precedent? Surely they are bound by precedent in common law offences?

GM228

My understanding is The Doctrine of Stare Decisis does not apply to the SCC due to it's "special court" status and the nature of the cases it hears to ensure justice is the guiding notion and not case law/precedent.

Perhaps I got that wrong, but I know the same applied for the Court of Criminal Appeal which was exempt from the doctrine as per a ruling in 1964 which was published in the Irish Jurist and mentioned/discussed by several legal professionals and legal lectures like in the example below - I assume that would still stand for the Court of Appeal as it is now.

https://teresaclyne.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/lawswot-precedent-and-case-law.pdf

The Court of Criminal Appeal is free to depart from the doctrine of precedent due to the nature of the cases it hears.

In relation to the publishing of SCC cases, indeed I don't think they are, but are they recorded?

MarkAnthony

CCC = Central criminal court
SCC = Special Criminal Court
CCA = Court of Criminal Appeal

CCA would depart from precedent now and then if needed but it's more of a case of reinterpreting things or deciding a breach of caselaw is invalid and going back and working off earlier case law.

Really in Ireland it's quite complicated as Judges shouldn't be legislating from the bench as their English counterparts do.

GM228

MarkAnthony wrote: »

CCC = Central criminal court
SCC = Special Criminal Court
CCA = Court of Criminal Appeal

CCA would depart from precedent now and then if needed but it's more of a case of reinterpreting things or deciding a breach of caselaw is invalid and going back and working off earlier case law.

Really in Ireland it's quite complicated as Judges shouldn't be legislating from the bench as their English counterparts do.

CCC in first part of my last post was a typo, should be SCC as per my OP.

CCA no longer exists, it's now the CA (Court of Appeal). Which is why I ask does the ruling (or any other rulings which specifically applied to tbe CCA) in relation to the CCA still apply to the CA?

4ensic15

GM228 wrote: »

CCC in first part of my last post was a typo, should be SCC as per my OP.

CCA no longer exists, it's now the CA (Court of Appeal). Which is why I ask does the ruling (or any other rulings which specifically applied to tbe CCA) in relation to the CCA still apply to the CA?

The Court of criminal Appeal still exists. It sat in the past week. It is in wind down mode.
The Court of Appeal ranks above it in the hierarchy. The judges of the Court of Appeal have the status of Supreme court judges so three of them would outrank the 1 Supreme Court and 2 High Court Judges on the court of Criminal Appeal.

MarkAnthony

4ensic15 wrote: »

The Court of criminal Appeal still exists. It sat in the past week. It is in wind down mode.
The Court of Appeal ranks above it in the hierarchy. The judges of the Court of Appeal have the status of Supreme court judges so three of them would outrank the 1 Supreme Court and 2 High Court Judges on the court of Criminal Appeal.

I had no idea they were winding it down I thought it was going to be the CA and the CCA, I take it everything is going to the CA now?

4ensic15

MarkAnthony wrote: »

I had no idea they were winding it down I thought it was going to be the CA and the CCA, I take it everything is going to the CA now?

There are still some old appeals hanging around.

MarkAnthony

GM228 wrote: »

CCC in first part of my last post was a typo, should be SCC as per my OP.

CCA no longer exists, it's now the CA (Court of Appeal). Which is why I ask does the ruling (or any other rulings which specifically applied to tbe CCA) in relation to the CCA still apply to the CA?

I'm not sure you're completely clear on how common law rulings work. It's not normally one case it's generally distinct points from a line of jurisprudence. I don't mean to sound patronising it's just something that takes a little experience to tease out.

Is there a specific thing you're driving at that you'd like more information on?

GM228

MarkAnthony wrote: »

I'm not sure you're completely clear on how common law rulings work. It's not normally one case it's generally distinct points from a line of jurisprudence. I don't mean to sound patronising it's just something that takes a little experience to tease out.

Is there a specific thing you're driving at that you'd like more information on?

No I understand common law, my point was the ruling in relation to the CCA being able to ignore precedent, would that ruling be still applicable to say the CA which is replacing it?

In the post you replied to I'm talking about specific rulings in relation to the rules of the court in that post as opposed to case law in general.

For example a ruling which say "the SCC can do X, Y or Z", would it apply to the CA?

GM228

4ensic15 wrote: »

The Court of criminal Appeal still exists. It sat in the past week. It is in wind down mode.
The Court of Appeal ranks above it in the hierarchy. The judges of the Court of Appeal have the status of Supreme court judges so three of them would outrank the 1 Supreme Court and 2 High Court Judges on the court of Criminal Appeal.

Thanks for that, I tought the CCA was already wound up, when should it be completely wound up do you know?

MarkAnthony

CA or SC are unlikely to be bound by CCA decisions simply due to hierarchy. They will affirm decisions they agree with but only if strictly necessary.

4ensic15

GM228 wrote: »

No I understand common law, my point was the ruling in relation to the CCA being able to ignore precedent, would that ruling be still applicable to say the CA which is replacing it?

I'm talking about specific rulings in relation to the rules of the court in that post as opposed to case law in general.

The CCA was not able to ignore precedent. It was bound by Supreme Court decisions. The Court of Appeal is bound by Supreme Court decisions but is not bound by old Court of Criminal Appeal decisions. One of the reasons for setting up the Court of Appeal was that the CCA was an ad hoc court and this was leading to inconsistency. The new Court of Appeal will be a much more fixed court with mostly the same judges hearing the appeals. It will set its own jurisprudence in time.

GM228

4ensic15 wrote: »

The CCA was not able to ignore precedent. It was bound by Supreme Court decisions.

Are you absolutely sure about that?

I ask because I've come accross several statements from reputable sources that the CCA was not bound by precedent and could ignore it to ensure justice is the guiding notion.

Usually along the lines of:-

The Court of Criminal Appeal is free to depart from the doctrine of precedent due to the nature of the cases it hears.

And usually supported by citing part of the judgement of People (AG) vs Moore [1964] Ir. Jur. Rep. 64:-

the interests of justice will best be served by giving effect to our own opinions, even though they differ from some of those expressed in O’Neill’s case

I'm also pretty certain that I read something along those lines in a report from the Law Reform Conmission or a publication from the Law Society.

MarkAnthony

Free (read able) to depart is not the same as ignoring precedent, they would have to give a very good reason why they were departing. I can certainly see why they would be allowed to depart given some crimes in Ireland are completely common law based and times change in relation to accepted norms. I could be wrong on this being common law but the slow burn defence in regards to battered partners springs to mind.

GM228

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Free (read able) to depart is not the same as ignoring precedent, they would have to give a very good reason why they were departing. I can certainly see why they would be allowed to depart given some crimes in Ireland are completely common law based and times change in relation to accepted norms. I could be wrong on this being common law but the slow burn defence in regards to battered partners springs to mind.

Good point re free to depart vs ignoring.

Thanks to all for the input.

4ensic15

GM228 wrote: »

Are you absolutely sure about that?

I ask because I've come accross several statements from reputable sources that the CCA was not bound by precedent and could ignore it to ensure justice is the guiding notion.

Usually along the lines of:-



And usually supported by citing part of the judgement of People (AG) vs Moore [1964] Ir. Jur. Rep. 64:-

In Moore the CCA was distinguishing a previous CCA decision. had there been a Supreme Court decision they could not ignore it. The CCA also did what any court does, it chooses the one it prefers from two contradictory decisions.


I'm also pretty certain that I read something along those lines in a report from the Law Reform Conmission or a publication from the Law Society.

In Moore the CCA was distinguishing a previous CCA decision. had there been a Supreme Court decision they could not ignore it. The CCA also did what any court does, it chooses the one it prefers from two contradictory decisions.

What you are certain you read and what was written might well be different given your comments on Moore.