Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
(i) The Attorney General as the Law Officer with ultimate responsibility for the PPS and CPS has a responsibility to explain the rationale behind the differing approaches of the two prosecution authorities as [he] bears ultimate responsibility for those decisions and this disparity in approach.
(ii) The judgment of Girvan J has ruled that the state is acting unlawfully, either in Northern Ireland or in England and Wales. In those circumstances it is incumbent upon the Attorney General to clarify the Government's view in relation to this issue.
(iii) The case raises a point of European law which the appellant submits requires a reference to the European Court of Justice. In the circumstances it is appropriate that the Attorney General be joined as a respondent at this stage.
(iv) The CPS which operates in Great Britain had not designated as a public service post the job for which the appellant applied to the PPS in Northern Ireland. Here it has been designated as a public service post and, therefore, not open to the appellant. The Attorney General is the superintending Minister and only he can answer for the State.
(i) The appellant's candidature had been rejected on the ground that she was ineligible for appointment by virtue of the post having received a "public service" designation under Article 39(4) of the Treaty of Rome.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.