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.
      In these proceedings, the Applicant seeks to challenge the lawfulness of a refusal of station bail following his arrest for a second alleged breach of a protection order made under s. 10 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2018 (hereinafter "the 2018 Act").
      The refusal of station bail is challenged as unlawful because at the material time the published policy of the Respondent (hereinafter "the Commissioner") was that station bail should be refused in cases of alleged breaches of domestic violence orders as stated at paragraph 6.1 of the " Policy of An Garda S�och�na on Domestic Abuse Intervention" (Revised Edition 2017) (Garda HQ Directive 23/2017) (hereinafter "Garda HQ Directive").�
      The Applicant maintains that the Garda HQ Directive operated to improperly fetter the discretion of the sergeant or member in charge under s. 31 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967 (as amended) (hereinafter "the 1967 Act") to release on station bail pending attendance before an early sitting of the District Court and that the Garda HQ Directive was based on an error of law.�
      The Garda HQ Directive was cancelled in January, 2025, by Garda HQ Directive 4/2025.� Accordingly, it is conceded on behalf of the Applicant that much of the relief sought at leave stage is no longer being pursued by reason of mootness.
      Due to their nature, these proceedings were heard before me in camera.� For this reason, personal identifying features have been removed in this judgment. �
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.