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.
By order of this Court dated 28 th May, 2001, the applicant was given leave to apply for the relief of:-
will reveal that he has been convicted of an offence contrary to the Offences against the State Act, 1939 and this would make him an object of suspicion to the police in that jurisdiction. He states that he is concerned that for the purpose of obtaining employment he may be required to disclose this conviction, even though it was imposed as a direct consequence of a violation of his rights under the European Convention of Human Rights.
A statement of grounds of opposition has been filed on behalf of the several respondents with the exception of the Director of Public Prosecutions in which the following grounds are pleaded:-
A statement of opposition had been filed on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions in which the following grounds are pleaded :-
The applicant states that as appears from the statement of evidence of Detective Sergeant Daniel F. Haugh, he was arrested by Detective Garda Mark Nash at or about 9.30 am on the 19 th July, 1996, and was cautioned by the Detective Garda that he was not obliged to say anything unless he wished to do so but anything he did say would be taken down in writing and might be given in evidence. He indicates that as appears from the statement of evidence of Sergeant Ian Connolly he read over his rights in custody to him at or about 9.46 am.
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.