The Gazette 1983
GAZETTE
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1983
opportunity in the interim to appoint a suitable Justice to the area before 11 May, 1976. With regard to the offences before District Justice Johnson, the Court stated that as the County Council Solicitor wished to open and plead the case in English, and as one of the witnesses wished to give evidence in English, District Justice Larkin could not be justified in hearing the case without an Interpreter. District Justice Johnson also stated in the High Court that he was not satisfied that he himself had sufficient Irish to properly conduct the proceedings; but he was merely on temporary duty on that occasion. It is a basic Principle of Law, that it is neither just nor lawful to hear a case in any language whatsoever, without giving sufficient opportunity to persons who do not speak that language. The Court Held that this was not a new principle of law and citing the case of O Foghludha v. McClean [1934] I.R. 649, the Judgement in that case being relevant to the case in point. There are cases where a complain- ant would be justified in obtaining a hearing in the District Court under Section 71 of the 1924 Act, but the present case could not be classed as one of them. If a Justice acted thus, in the present case, the hearing would be repugnant to the Constitution, as it would be contrary to natural justice, not to mention being based on an incorrect interpretation of the correct meaning of Section 71 of the Courts of Justice Act 1924. Ó Monacháin v. An Taoiseach and another. (Supreme Court) (per Henchy J., Walsh J. and Griffith J.) — 16 July, 1982 — unreported. Leachlain O'Kane O'MONACHAIN v. AN TAOISEACH ACUS EILE AN CHU1RT UACHTARACH Theip ordú á dhearbhu gur theip ar an Rialtas agus ar an Aire Dlf agus Cirt na dualgais a leagadh orthu faoi Alt 71 den Acht Cúirteanna Breithiúnais 1924 a chomhlfonadh. Ciontafodh an gearánaí, Tomás ó Monacháin, faoi dhó sa Chúirt Dúiche sa Bhun Beag, Co. Dhún na nGall. An chéad uair. ar an 2ú Feabhra 1976. dúradh go ndearna sé forbairt in aghaidh Alt 24 den Acht Riaitais Aitiúil (Pleanáii agus Forbairt) 1963. gan an cead riachtanach a bheith aige. Triaileadh é os comhair an
Bhreitheamh Keenan Johnson, a bhí ann mar Bhreitheamh sealadach an lá úd. Thug an gearánaí a chuid fianaise as Gaeilge. Ba. mhian le Aturnae an Chomh- airle Chontae an cás a phlé i mBéarla. Thug an chéad fhinné a chuid fianaise as Gaeilge ach thug an dara finné a chuid fianaise as Béarla toisc nach raibh an Ghaeilge aige. Dá bhrí sin. d'éist an Breitheamh leis an gcás le ciinimh ó fhear teanga agus bhí se cúramach. chomh maith, faoin fhiontar go mb'fheidir nach dtuiefcadh sé gach aon fhocal de ,-haint Dhún na gGal 1 . An dara huair, ar an 11 ú Bealtaine 1976. triaileadh an gearánaí os comhair an Bhreithamh Dúiche, an Bhreitheamh Larkin, ar ghearán go nearna sé an cion céanna ar ócáid eile. Baineadh úsáid as ateangaire leis chun an fhianaise a tugadh i nGaei'ge a aistriú go Béarla. Deinadh na himeachtai seo a thion- s-nimh san Ard-Chúirt i mi Meithamh 1976. le toghairm iomlánach. Is iad seo na rudai a bhi á n-éileamh ag an ngearanai. (1) Ordú á dhearbhu gur theip ar an Rialtas agus ar an Aire DIÍ agus Cirt na dualgais a leagadh orthu faoi Alt 71 den Acht Cúirteanna Breithiunais, 1924. a chomhlfonadh. (2) Ordu i bhfoirm mandamus a chuir- feadh iachall ar i
go raibh sé sásta gur theip ar an Rialtas agus ar an Aire Dli agus Cirt a ndualgais reachttila a chomhlionadh. Do sannaiodh an Breitheamh Larkin chuig an dúiche ar an 29ú Meán Fómhair 1961. Bhi go lear ama chun Breitheamh oiriúnacn a cheapadh don dúiche roimh I lu Bealtaine 1976. Ar ciontú os comhair qn Breitheamh Johnson, de bhri gur mhian le Aturnae an Chomhairle Chontae an cas a oscailt agus a phlé i mBéarla agus nach raibh an Ghaeilge ag finné amhain. na bheadh an ceart ag an mBreitheamh eisteacht le cas in eagmais cunaimh o ateangaire. duirt an Breitheamh Ó hlnnse. Dúirt an Bieitheamh Johnson san Ard-Chuirt nach raibh se sásta go mbcadh a dhóthain Gaeilge aige. Duirt an Breitheamh O hlnnse. gur bun- prionsabal dli é, nach bhfuil se cóir na dlisteanach éisteacht le cás i dteanga ar bith gan seans a thabhairt do dhaoine nach bhfuil an teanga sin acu. Duirt sé nach aon dli nua a bhi á chur ar aghaidh aige agus luaigh se an cás Ó Foghludha v. McClean (1934] I.R. 4969. Dúirt sé go raibh an breithiúnais seo ábhartach so chas a bhf ós a chomhair. Tú cásanna ann ina mbeadh ceart ag gearánaí eisteacht a fháil sa Chuirt Dúiche faoi Alt 71 uch dúirt sé nárbh fhéidir an cás seo a áireamh ina mease. Dá ndeanfadh an Breitheamh amhlaidh sa chás seo, éisteacht aimhreireach leis an mBunreacht a bheadh ann. toisc i bheith contrártha don cheartas aiceanta, gan trácht ar i bheith de bhun mhi-thuiscint ar an mbri cheart a bhaineann le hAlt 71. Ó MONACHAIN v. AN TAOISEACH AGUS EILE. AN CHÚIRT UACHTARACH. (BREITHIMH: Ó hINNSE. BREATHNACH AGUS Ó GRÍOFA) I6u IUIL 1982. Nior tuairisciodh. Ed i t or i al Note: In the November 1982 issue of Recent Irish Cases, the summary in the case of The State (.Flynn & O'Flaherty Ltd.) v. The Lord Mayor, Alderman and Burgesses of the City of Dublin was accredited to John F. Buckley. The summary was in fact prepared by William Earley, and the error is regretted. Edited by Gary Byrne.
Copies of judgments in the above cases are available to members on request from the Society's Library.
Ni raibh an Breitheamh Breathnach ar aon intinn leis faoin bpointc sin. Dúirt se
Made with FlippingBook