PB February-March 2026
February-March 2026 39
Recent case law: Mark Tottenham
THE LAW...
...UNTO
ITSELF
Increased sentence was
appropriate for false
imprisonment of former
partner
The Direcor of Public Prosecuions v
Mounssir [2025] IESC 53 (Supreme Cour,
O’Mlley J, 5 December 2025)
The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by
an individual who challenged the Court of
Appeal’s decision to increase his sentence
to fi ve and a half years’ imprisonment for
false imprisonment committed against a
former partner, with an associated assault
taken into consideration. The Supreme
Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s
fi nding that the original sentence from
the Circuit Court was unduly lenient given
the seriousness, duration, violence, and
breach of trust inherent in the off ending,
which included forcibly imprisoning the
victim in a car boot and subjecting her to
prolonged violence. The Supreme Court
confi rmed that off ences committed in
the context of an intimate relationship
require a higher sentence due to greater
harm and culpability, and rejected calls
to provide rigid sentencing guidelines
for false imprisonment, citing the variety
of circumstances in which such off ences
occur. The practice of taking off ences
into consideration when sentencing was
confi rmed as lawful but requiring care to
avoid perceptions of undue leniency or
‘free rides’ for off enders.
Age limit of 18 upheld
concerning reunifi cation
between refugee and her
adult child
S v Miniser for Jusice [2025] IESC 48
(Supreme Cour, Dunne J, 25 November
2025)
The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by a
refugee who challenged the refusal to grant
family reunifi cation for her adult daughter,
after her daughter turned eighteen before
the application could be made. The Court
upheld the High Court and Court of Appeal
decisions, fi nding that the relevant Irish
statute law setting the eligibility cutoff at
the date of family reunifi cation application
(not the asylum application date) was
valid. The Court held that Irish legislation
was not unconstitutional, did not breach
EU law, nor was it incompatible with the
European Convention on Human Rights, as
Ireland had deliberately chosen not to opt
into relevant EU Directives governing family
reunifi cation. The Court accepted that,
while this approach could lead to harsh
outcomes, it refl ected a policy choice within
the legislature’s discretion and did not
amount to impermissible discrimination.
The appellant remains entitled to apply
under a non-statutory administrative
scheme, but the lack of access to family
reunifi cation for adult children under the
statutory scheme stands.
Suspects could be required
to disclose passwords to
lawfully seized devides
Yvor Poposhev v The Direcor of Public
Prosecuions [2025] IESC 47 (Supreme
Cour, Chrleon J, 24 November 2025)
The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal
from the High Court brought by an individual
who challenged the constitutionality of
being compelled to disclose passwords for
lawfully seized smartphones and a laptop
during a police search in a major fraud
investigation. The court held that while
compelling the disclosure of passwords
or biometric access does engage the right
against self-incrimination—since providing
such access is potentially incriminating as
proof of possession or use—the regime is
constitutionally permissible so long as any
such compelled disclosure (the password
or biometric act itself) is excluded from use
as evidence in any subsequent criminal
prosecution for the underlying off ence. The
court found the legislative provisions to be
a targeted and proportionate response to
the challenge posed by digital evidence in
serious crime investigations and rejected
arguments that the law was either too
broad, lacked judicial safeguards, or
February-March 2026 39
Village_FebMarch26.indb 39Village_FebMarch26.indb 39 03/02/2026 08:2403/02/2026 08:24
40 February-March 2026
February-March 2026 PB
should not extend to smartphones. The
prosecution for the appellant’s refusal to
provide the passwords can proceed, with
the proviso that any compelled evidence
cannot be used against them in any further
prosecution for the principal off ence.
State could not be
required to issue new birth
certifi cates in assumed
names
Doe v Commissioner of An Grd Síochn
[2025] IESC 44 (Supreme Cour, O’Donnell
CJ, 7 November 2025)
The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal
from a group of plaintiff s connected
with a witness relocation programme
seeking to compel the State to issue birth
certifi cates and other offi cial identity
documents in assumed names that
diff ered from those accurately recorded at
birth. The Court upheld the lower court’s
decision, fi nding that there was no right
to have new or amended birth certifi cates
issued in assumed names where the
original registration was accurate. The
judgment emphasised the public interest
in maintaining the integrity of the civil
registration system and clarifi ed that
the constitutional right to identity does
not extend to the creation of fi ctitious
offi cial documents. The Court held that the
circumstances did not engage the right to
identity or any fundamental aspect of the
plaintiff s’ personal identities, and there
was no evidence that refusal to issue such
documents placed them in danger.
Refusal of international
protection was invalid
where the decision -maker
failed to await a psychiatric
report
EL (Georgi) v Chief Inernionl Proecion
O f fi c e r [2025] IEHC 690 (High Cour, Brr J,
5 December 2025)
The High Court quashed a decision
by the International Protection Offi ce
refusing international protection to a
Georgian national, on the grounds that the
decision-maker failed to await a crucial
psychiatric report as requested by the
applicant’s solicitor before issuing the
refusal. The court found that the failure to
consider this signifi cant medical evidence
amounted to a breach of fair procedure
and unreasonableness, notwithstanding
the use of accelerated procedures for
applicants from designated safe countries.
The court also determined that, due to the
fundamental unfairness at fi rst instance,
the existence of a right to appeal did
not preclude judicial review, as it would
deprive the applicant of the benefi t of
having important evidence considered at
both stages. The case was remitted back for
fresh consideration.
Road through farmyard was
not a public right of way
McDid v Monghn Couny Council [2025]
IEHC 705 (High Cour, Chill J, 5 December
2025)
The High Court held that a 150-metre stretch
of road running through the plaintiff ’s
farmyard was not a public road or public
right of way, but instead constituted a
private road or private right of way for the
successors to the original donor’s land. The
plaintiff successfully argued, and the court
accepted, that public use was minimal,
limited to descendants of neighbouring
landowners and occasional tolerated
neighbourly use, with no evidence of works
or maintenance by the local authority. The
court further found the local authority could
not demonstrate formal steps or statutory
compliance in taking the road in charge.
Costs orders made against
spouse who failed to
disclose inherited farm
assets in separation
proceedings
G.C. v J.C. (proper provision, dispriy in
vluions, non-disclosure of sses) [2025]
IEHC 706 (High Cour, Jckson J, 29 Ocober
2025)
The High Court granted a decree of
judicial separation to parties in a long-
standing marital dispute involving a family
farm, a family home, and dependent
children. The applicant was awarded
a lump sum of €650,000 plus 60% of
the net value of undisclosed inherited
lands, primarily to enable her to obtain
suitable accommodation and cover legal
costs. The court found the applicant was
entitled to substantial provision given
her contributions throughout a lengthy
marriage, despite the respondent’s pre-
marital ownership and strong family
provenance of key assets. The judgment
also addressed litigation misconduct
due to the respondent’s non-disclosure
of newly inherited lands and failures
of candour during proceedings, which
resulted in further costs orders against
him. Maintenance arrangements were
made for the dependent children, and
the respondent retained the core farming
assets necessary for his livelihood. The
court’s decision turned on balancing the
needs, contributions, asset provenance,
earning capacities, and issues of
disclosure, providing for the applicant’s
future independence while preserving the
farming enterprise for the respondent.
Italian companies could
not get injunction to
restore their social media
advertising accounts
Bhblsed S.R.L. Socie Benefi v Me
Plforms Irelnd Ld [2025] IEHC 699 (High
Cour, Bolger J, 4 December 2025)
The High Court refused an application
by a group of Italian companies for
interlocutory injunctive relief compelling
a technology company to restore their
disabled advertising accounts and provide
access to client billing records, pending the
resolution of proceedings. The court found
that the plaintiff s had not established a
strong case for the mandatory interim relief
sought, noting that the contractual terms
allowed for account suspension without
notice and that the plaintiff s had accepted
responsibility for their clients’ compliance
but failed to demonstrate adequate
monitoring or present evidence that the
accounts were wrongfully disabled. The
court also held that the plaintiff s’ failure
to act with reasonable expedition and the
adequacy of damages weighed against
granting relief. While recognising that the
plaintiff s incurred substantial losses and
inconvenience, the court concluded that
these could be addressed by damages at
trial and declined to order alternative relief
for return of pre-paid monies or documents.
40 February-March 2026
Village_FebMarch26.indb 40Village_FebMarch26.indb 40 03/02/2026 08:2403/02/2026 08:24
