Criminal Proceedings

Question 1

Maps Ireland Ltd is a company that manufactures maps for schools and businesses. On the 1st March 2016, Maps Ireland Ltd sent a letter to Paper4U Ltd with which it had been negotiating, offering it a contract to supply Maps Ireland Ltd with paper for the next two years. The contract was for €4,000 per month. The letter included a sentence which stated ‘acceptance should be communicated by post.”

Unfortunately, the address on the front of the letter was smudged by the rain and, as a result the postal worker delivered it to the wrong address. The mistake was discovered but the result was that Paper4U Ltd did not receive the letter until the 6th March. They responded immediately by post accepting the offer, which was posted at 12 noon on the 6th.

In the meantime, Maps Ireland Ltd had received another offer from Papyrus Ltd, offering to supply them with paper for the next two years at a rate of €3,500 per month. The managers at Maps Ireland Ltd decided to accept this offer. So they sent an email to Paper4U Ltd on the morning of the 6th March cancelling their original offer. The email was received at 10am on the 6th but nobody in the Paper4U office looked at the email until 5pm on the 6th because they were too busy celebrating their new deal with Maps Ireland Ltd.

Paper4Us Ltd has come to you seeking advice on whether they can sue Maps Ireland Ltd to enforce the original deal, please advise.

Question 2

In D.P. P v JC (2015) IES C31 (“JC”) the State invited the Supreme Court to look at the balance to be struck between the constitutional rights of an accused to a fair evidence gathering process as against the rights of the public at large to have compelling evidence admitted to criminal proceedings.

Discuss how the Supreme Court revisited the exclusionary rule provided for in D.P.P v Kenny (1990)2 IR 110 and the implications that this Judgment has for admissibility of unconstitutionally obtained evidence.