A man charged with stealing and receiving more than £11,000 worth of confectionery yesterday lost his Supreme Court attempt to be tried by a jury sufficiently fluent in Irish to follow legal proceedings without a translator.
While accepting there was no such thing as perfect interpretation, the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Hamilton, said most of the population would be excluded from jury service if they were required to have a clear grasp of the Irish language. This would be contrary to the requirement that a jury should be truly representative. In Ireland at the moment, with most people unable to follow legal matters in Irish without a translator, the best available solution was having a translator.
Mr Ruairi Mac Carthaigh, of Whitebrook Park, Tallaght, Co Dublin, had said he was raised in Dublin through Irish and, because of that, would prefer to make his own case through Irish.
Mr Mac Carthaigh had submitted that anything said by him or by a lawyer on his behalf would not have the same effect unless every member of the jury has a clear grasp of the Irish language.
He claimed his constitutional rights would be infringed unless the jury chosen were so fluent in Irish that they could understand everything said in the trial without the assistance of a translator.
Mr Mac Carthaigh was charged with stealing £11,252 of chocolates and confectionery at Suardais Road, Corballis, Dublin, on May 28th, 1990.
In proceedings against the State and the DPP in the High Court, he lost his application to be tried by a jury who understood Irish and appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.
Giving the Supreme Court judgment yesterday, the Chief Justice said it was common knowledge that there were not many people in Ireland today who understood legal matters being discussed in Irish without the help of a translator.
He noted that, in the High Court decision, Mr Justice O'Hanlon acknowledged the Irish language had a special position by virtue of its being the national language and that Mr Mac Carthaigh could conduct his defence in Irish if he wished.
But, as far as selecting a jury went, there was a basic principle which could not be set aside and that was that one should be able to say of a jury in every criminal case that they stood for every member of the public in the area where the case was being heard.
Mr Justice O'Hanlon had, on the basis of statistics regarding Irish speakers, found some 75 per cent of the population of Dublin city would have to be set aside when assembling a roll call of jurors if it was a requirement that they be able to understand legal matters in Irish and that the figure would be closer to 90 per cent if considering persons who could understand and discuss complicated matters of criminal law.
The High Court judge also found, if Mr Mac Carthaigh's request was granted, most people in Ireland would be unable to serve on a jury in cases conducted in Irish without an interpreter. This would be contrary to the requirement that a jury should be truly representative and a fair cross-section of the community.
The Chief Justice said the court agreed with the High Court reasoning that restricting jury service to special groups only or excluding identifiable segments playing major roles in the community could not be squared with the constitutional concept of a jury trial.
He accepted there were difficulties associated with translation. It had been stated that non-English speaking defendants were not judged on their own words no matter how accurate the interpretation. The words, style, syntax and emotion were not the defendant's.
"That is true enough but it must be said, in Ireland at the moment, there is no better solution," the Chief Justice said.
The five-judge court unanimously dismissed the appeal and made no order for costs. Costs were awarded against Mr Mac Carthaigh in the High Court proceedings.
