The Court of Criminal Appeal has rejected an application by Dermot Laide to prevent his retrial for the manslaughter of student Brian Murphy outside Club Anabel in Dublin five years ago.
Laide's conviction on the manslaughter charge was quashed by the court earlier this year and it ordered a retrial.
The three-judge appeal court also yesterday turned down an application by lawyers for Laide (23), Rossvale, Castleblayney, Co Monaghan, for the referral to the Supreme Court a point of law arising from the case which, counsel contended, was of exceptional public importance.
This related to whether the court was obliged to consider certain matters in the appeal related to the defence of "common design" or "joint enterprise".
Following yesterday's decisions, it is for the Director of Public Prosecutions to decide if he wishes to proceed with a new trial.
On February 24th last, the Court of Criminal Appeal quashed Laide's manslaughter conviction but directed a retrial on that charge. It upheld his conviction for violent disorder for which he was given a two-year sentence.
It also decided in February that when he completes his sentence in the autumn for violent disorder, he may be released pending a new trial on the manslaughter charge.
In the application on which judgment was given yesterday, counsel for Laide argued that they should be allowed to re- open part of the February 24th judgment in that court, or, if that application failed, they should be entitled to an order under section 29 of the Courts of Justice Act certifying that that decision involved a point of law of exceptional public importance permitting an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Lawyers for the DPP opposed the application by Laide.
Giving yesterday's judgment, Mr Justice Brian McCracken, with Mr Justice Roderick Murphy and Mr Justice Michael Peart, said there were no exceptional circumstances which would allow the court to re-open the question of a retrial.
In the present case, it could not possibly be said that there had been any breach of any constitutional rights of Laide.
As Laide had not brought himself "within any recognisable grounds to seek to have the matter revisited", the court would not entertain any further arguments as to the decision to direct a retrial.
Mr Justice McCracken said the court's jurisdiction derived solely from statute and the orders which it was empowered to make were those set out in section 3(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1993.
It was clear that statute offered alternatives to the court, either to quash the conviction simpliciter or to quash the conviction and order a retrial.
Specifically, the section did not empower the court to quash a conviction and subsequently consider the question of a retrial. The ordering of a retrial was part of the substantive order of the court.
At the hearing of an appeal against conviction, it was always open to the appellant to argue before the court which of those remedies was appropriate.
It was open to Laide to do so in the present case and accordingly, he was not precluded in any way from making the arguments which it was sought to make at the supplementary hearing.
The Court of Criminal Appeal reserved judgment on the issue of costs in relation to Laide's appeal in that court. He had been on legal aid for his earlier trial in the Circuit Criminal Court.
The court allowed Desmond Ryan, Cunningham Road, Dalkey, his costs of his previously successful appeal in which his conviction for violent disorder arising from the Anabel's incidents was overturned.