Judges will now be able to overturn convictions found to be unsafe under the European Convention on Human Rights, even if they were found to be constitutional under Irish law. Carol Coulter, Legal Affairs Correspondent, reports.
This is the effect of a decision by the State not to appeal a High Court judgment overturning a conviction condemned by the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg as a violation of human rights.
The case concerns Mr Paul Quinn, a computer analyst from Patrickswell, Limerick, who had served six months in prison following his conviction for failing to give an account of his movements under Section 52 of the Offences Against the State Act.
He brought an action against the State to the European Court of Human Rights, claiming that Section 52 violated his right to silence and against self-incrimination, guaranteed by Article 6.1 of the Convention. He won in that court, and the State paid him €4,000 in damages.
However, the conviction remained in place and on record, and Mr Quinn said this had serious implications for his job prospects and his ability to travel.
He sought to have the conviction set aside, but was unsuccessful. He then brought judicial review proceedings against the State in the High Court.
The Irish Supreme Court had already ruled in another case (Heaney v Ireland 1996) that Section 52 of the Act was constitutional. This meant that the Supreme Court and the Strasbourg court came to different conclusions about the legislation.
During the debate on the incorporation of the ECHR into Irish law, the question was raised as to what would happen if a conviction found to be constitutional in the Irish courts was later found to contravene the Convention. The consensus was that the only remedy would be a presidential pardon. However, this is discretionary, not a right, and is unlikely to be seen as an "effective remedy" by the Strasbourg court.
The State argued in the Quinn case that the High Court should not give priority to the Convention over domestic law and the Constitution, even though the State is obliged to give effect to a judgment of the Strasbourg court.
In his judgment last April, Mr Justice Ó Caoimh ruled that, in the interests of justice, Mr Quinn was entitled to have his conviction set aside. He also found that the State is not obliged to repeal legislation found to be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The decision of the State not to appeal his judgment, but to allow it stand, was described by Ms Alma Clissmann, a human rights expert in the Law Society, as "a very unexpected development", as it allowed the ECHR judgment overrule a constitutional ruling by the Supreme Court. It offered a precedent that would normally be followed by other judges, she said, and strengthened this course of challenging convictions. Ms Clissmann acknowledged that only a handful of cases were ever likely to be affected, but said that the case helped to clarify the status of the European Convention on Human Rights in Irish law.