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.
Having heard counsel the learned trial judge refused the application. Counsel's note of the judgment of O'Sul1ivan J. states in conclusion:-
The core of the law in issue is to be found in the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967. Section 5(l) of the Act of 1967, states:-
The kernel of the appeal is whether or not the District Judge acted within jurisdiction in refusing the further request for depositions. Thus there are two aspects of discretion in consideration. First, whether the District Judge was entitled to refuse the application for the depositions. Secondly, the discretion which remains in a court in its determination as to whether or not an order on and application for judicial review lies.
There is well settled Irish law that a court, even if it commences acting within jurisdiction, may fall into unconstitutionality or breach natural justice or fail to stay within its bounds of jurisdiction. In The State (Holland) v. Kennedy [1977] IR 193 Henchy J. stated at p. 201:-
The obligation of a District Judge is to conduct a preliminary examination in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1967. This permits the preliminary examination to be conducted and completed on the basis of the book of evidence alone or on the basis of the depositions sought. In this case the accused exercised his entitlement to seek depositions. He then resiled form this decision.
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.