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.
The High Court (Kearns J.) in an ex tempore but carefully reasoned judgment refused the injunction. The appeal to this court is against that refusal.
The learned High Court judge was dismissive from a quite early stage of the complaints of lack of specificity having regard to previous decisions of this court. I think that the learned High Court judge was correct in adopting this view and I do not recall the matter being seriously pressed at the appeal.
As far as the media publicity is concerned, counsel for the applicant in the High Court did not claim that that, of itself, could be a ground for stopping the trial but merely indicated that regard should be had to it among all the circumstances. It has not seriously featured at the hearing of the appeal either.
The affidavit then goes on to deal with the pre-trial publicity but for the reasons which I have indicated I do not intend to go into that in any detail. The appellant explains in the affidavit different respects in which he has been caused upset by the charges.
I turn now to the affidavit of Mr. Niall O'Neill. After setting out the formalities of the case he says the following in paragraph 4.
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.