High Court He was appointed as a Judge of the
High Court in December 2006, As a judge of the Central Criminal Court, in a case called
The People (DPP) v WD he introduced sentencing bands for rape cases and followed this up with supervision of the Judicial Researchers Office to produce sentencing guidelines for a range of serious indictable crime. Sentencing guidelines are now a feature of Irish law. Other cases of note include
James Elliot Construction Ltd v Irish Asphalt Ltd and Others [2011] IEHC 338, where, after a lengthy trial on liability for a building’s ruination, the plaintiff was granted €1,000,000.00 on account of damages and €500,000.00 towards costs, and
Weston Ltd v An Bord Pleanála [2010] IEHC 255, where it was held that An Bord Pleanála lawfully refused planning permission for six new hangars at Weston Executive Airport, affirming that preventing intensification of use is a core principle of sustainable planning in line with global norms on controlling airport expansion in sensitive greenbelt zones. In the realm of intellectual property law, Charleton also had to decide in the case of
Ivax v Glaxo 2008 No. 3PAP on whether combining two known asthma drugs, salmeterol and fluticasone, into a single inhaler involved an inventive step or was an obvious development, and thus whether Glaxo’s patent for Seretide was valid, finding that ultimately it was not as the subject matter of the patent was not patentable. Charleton was also the first judge from the common law tradition to impose graduated restrictions on internet copyright violations. He has also acted as an ad hoc judge of the
European Court of Human Rights.
Supreme Court He was nominated to the Supreme Court in June 2014 and appointed by
President Michael D. Higgins in July 2014. Charleton has written judgments for the Supreme Court on key aspects of criminal law. In 2016, he outlined the nature of consent in law in the context of sexual offences. He developed the substance of Irish common law defences of duress and provocation in the
Gleeson and
McNamara cases respectively, in both instances deploying tests using mixed standards of objective and subjective elements. Charleton has also written a number of other judgments such as
Island Ferries Teoranta v Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources & Ors [2015] IESC 95, which held that harbour charges must stay within the limits of delegated legislative power, striking down arbitrary State-imposed fees at Ros a’ Mhíl while upholding more modest, socially justified charges at Cill Rónáin, emphasising fair pricing and the need to avoid exploiting consumers or distorting competition through unfair pricing or exclusionary practices. In the area of tort law, Charleton delivered a judgment in
Cromane Seafoods Ltd v Minister for Agriculture [2016] IESC 6 where it was held that the Minister was not liable in negligence or for breach of legitimate expectation by closing Castlemaine Harbour to comply with EU conservation law, Charleton emphasising in his judgment that liability for closing Castlemaine Harbour could not arise without first invalidating the statutory instruments, underscoring the principle that environmental compliance decisions are matters for law and governance. In
Bederev v Ireland Ors [2016] IESC 34, Charleton delivered a judgment which upheld the power to add drugs to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 schedule, ruling that this was a constitutionally valid delegation of detail, not law-making, because clear principles and
Oireachtas oversight existed. In
Gearty v Director of Public Prosecutions & Ors [2024] IESC 45, the Minister’s power to create indictable offences by regulation to enforce EU habitat directives was upheld, with Charleton J stressing that such delegation is valid when narrowly bounded and necessitated by European law, reflecting a wider trend of states using strong criminal sanctions to meet biodiversity and climate obligations. In the area of competition law, Charleton delivered a judgment in
CRH Plc, Irish Cement & Ors v The Competition and Consumer Protection Commission [2017] IESC 34, where it was held that under section 37 of the Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2014, investigators may lawfully copy and remove digital records for off-site forensic examination, rejecting arguments that scrutiny must occur on-site. He emphasised that retention and later analysis are inherent in statutory powers to seize and copy, provided privacy rights under Article 8 ECHR are respected through proportionate safeguards. The judgment outlined practical measures, such as keyword searches, destruction of irrelevant material, and possible attendance by representatives, to balance effective enforcement of competition law with constitutional and Convention rights, but that these are limited to competition law and do not apply in, for instance, criminal investigations. Judgment was delivered by Charleton in
Sweeney v Ireland [2019] IESC 39 Charleton, writing for the Court, upheld the constitutionality of disclosure obligations under section 9 of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 ruling that the provision was sufficiently certain, requiring witnesses, not suspects, to disclose information about serious offences that could assist a prosecution, thus not infringing the right to silence or the privilege against self-incrimination as the duty does not apply to those who would incriminate themselves, and the “reasonable excuse” exemption covers such situations. A further judgment regarding the right to silence was delivered by Charleton J in
Poptoshev v Ireland & Ors [2025] IESC 47, where Charleton, writing for the Court, upheld the constitutionality of compelling suspects to provide passwords under judicial warrant, provided what is revealed by a suspect, under compulsion of prosecution, is excluded at any criminal trial for the offence under investigation ruling that such measures. This limit on the right to silence was held to be proportionate, and necessary for investigations and lawful digital searches. In
Braney v Special Criminal Court [2021] IESC 7, Charleton, writing for the Court, upheld extended detention under the Offences Against the State Act 1939 as constitutional, affirming that differentiated safeguards for terrorism offences are lawful and necessary to balance security with fundamental rights, and that in any case of detention, a member of An Garda Síochána must form a reasonable suspicion that a person is guilty of an arrestable offence. In the aftermath of the pandemic, a constitutional issue arose in
Burke v The Minister for Education [2022] IESC 1, in which Charleton delivered a judgment, holding that excluding home-schooled students from pandemic-era calculated grades unlawfully interfered with constitutional rights, highlighting that the Government’s postponement of the Leaving Certificate was a valid exercise of executive power, but the CGEO’s refusal to award calculated grades was an unconstitutional administrative act that breached students’ rights by denying them access to third-level education. In relation to intellectual property law, a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union was written by Charleton in
Merck Sharp & Dohme Ltd v Clonmel Healthcare Ltd [2022] IESC 11 in relation to the interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 on supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) for medicinal products, arising from an appeal by Merck Sharp & Dohme regarding the validity of an SPC for its cholesterol-lowering combination product, Inegy, under Articles 3(a) and 3(c) of the Regulation. With Charleton writing for the Court, the reference was made having regard to the fact that the matter was not
acte clair, as there was still uncertainty as to whether multiple SPCs may be granted for products covered by a single patent, particularly where claims include both a novel active ingredient and combinations with known substances. The issue of police powers and search warrants were also considered by Charleton in
The People (DPP) v Quirke [2023] IESC 5, where Charleton held that, while Gardaí could seize a computer during a lawful search, they could not examine its digital contents without judicial authorisation, outlining that computers hold vast personal data and raise heightened privacy concerns, requiring investigators to inform the District Court when seeking access to the “virtual space” of a device. Regarding the area of possession and inferences in criminal law, the judgment of
DPP v DT [2025] IESC 25 delivered by Charleton it was held that a joint enterprise to possess drugs may be established where the surrounding circumstances indicate that the accused was knowingly involved in the control of contraband, and that such involvement may arise through practical assistance or active encouragement of the enterprise. It was further held that in determining whether the accused was engaged in a joint enterprise, a jury may draw support from the failure of the accused to provide an explanation, when required under statute, for their presence at a location where drugs were discovered. Regarding joint enterprise, Charleton also delivered judgment in
The People (DPP) v MB [2024] IESC 33, where it was held that under the doctrine of common design, sustained participation in a brutal pattern of assaults made the accused liable for co‑actor’s escalation, underscoring the principle that recklessness and shared intent can ground criminal responsibility. A number of notable dissents have also been written by Charleton, including those in
Dwyer v Commissioner of An Garda Síochána [2020] IESC 4,
Zalewski v Adjudication Office & Ors [2021] IESC 24,
Heneghan v the Minister for Housing & Ors [2023] IESC 7,
Costello v The Government of Ireland & Ors [2022] IESC 44, and
McCool v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd [2024] IESC 5. In September 2023, Charleton also took up the role of Director of Judicial Studies for the Irish courts, which involves delivering education in the three key areas of black letter law, judge-craft, and appreciation of the changed nature of Irish society. He retired from the Supreme Court in April 2026 having reached the statutory retirement age of 70 for judges in Ireland.
Disclosures Tribunal In 2017, he was appointed sole member of the
Disclosures Tribunal investigation into allegations of
Garda Síochána malpractice. He published two substantive reports as chair of the Tribunal. The portion of the inquiry presided over by Charleton ran from February 2017 until October 2018. In his findings from the inquiry, he found that a Garda sergeant, Maurice McCabe, had been subject to a smear campaign by the
Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan and a Garda press officer, but not from subsequent Commissioner
Nóirín O'Sullivan and other Gardaí. He was also critical of the Child and Family Agency in handling claims of rape. In his concluding remarks on his findings, he criticised the Gardaí and the Child and Family Agency for not having organisational mentalities of learning from their errors. He was particularly critical of the credibility of evidence given by several senior members of the police force.
Drew Harris, O'Sullivan's successor as commissioner, said on its publication that the report was "difficult reading for the organisation" and the Gardaí would move to have "an open and inclusive culture". He later co-authored a journal article about his proposals for change. ==Personal life==