Three new appeals: exclusionary rule, refugee applicant’s right to work & workplace bullying

Criminal Assets Bureau v Murphy & Another (here)

This case concerns the application of the exclusionary rule on evidence in civil and in rem proceedings (against property).

Where a dwelling is entered other than in accordance with law, and that dwelling is not that of a person seeking to assert a constitutional right to the inviolability thereof, may evidence be excluded in proceedings concerning a person not dwelling therein?

Is there any rule of law requiring that evidence obtained in consequence of illegal entry into a dwelling should be excluded from civil proceedings, including proceedings in rem under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996, as amended?

Is there any rule of law requiring the exclusion of evidence in civil proceedings obtained in consequence of a deliberate illegality, or a mistake amounting to an illegality, or in consequence of the deliberate and conscious violation of the rights of one of the parties?

 

NHV v The Minister for Justice and Equality (here)

This is a case taken by an applicant for refugee status, living in direct provision accommodation, seeking the right to work while his application is being processed. The Court certified three questions for appeal:

Where a non-national comes to the State and seeks refugee status, or subsidiary protection status does section 9(4) of the Refugee Act 1996, or any other provision of law, prohibit the Minister for Justice and Equality from granting permission to the person to work?

If there is such prohibition, is it nonetheless within the scope of governmental power to nonetheless grant permission to work pending the resolution of such an application?

If there is not within the scope of governmental power to grant permission to work pending the resolution of such application and if section 9(4) of the Refugee Act 1996 prohibits the Minister for Justice and Equality from granting such permission, is that prohibition consistent with the Constitution?

 

Ruffley v Board of Management of St Anne’s School (here)

Ruffley was a special needs assistant in St Anne’s primary school. Subsequent to disciplinary proceedings, Ruffley instituted High Court proceedings under the Industrial Relations Act 1990. The High Court found that the Board’s disciplinary process was inappropriate and within the meaning of bullying in the workplace. The Court of Appeal held that, although the Board’s treatment of Ruffley was contrary to fair procedure and had caused psychiatric injury, it did not fall into the definition of bullying. The Supreme Court granted Ruffley leave to appeal on two questions:

The Court considers that there are two aspects of the decision in the Court of Appeal, where the members of that Court diverged significantly in their assessment, that are of potential widespread significance to employees and employers. The first is the desirability of clarification of the status of a disciplinary process in relation to an allegation of bullying. The Court accordingly grants leave to appeal on the following question:

Whether an unfairly carried out disciplinary process resulting in psychiatric injury is, in itself, capable of being actionable in damages on the basis that it amounts to workplace bullying without evidence of malicious intent on the part of the employer.

25. The second aspect concerns part of the content of the right to dignity in the workplace. The Court grants leave on the following question:

Whether behaviour not witnessed by other persons in the workplace is capable of undermining the dignity of an employee.

Advertisements
Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: