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.
(ii)������ an order of certiorari removing the decision to the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland and quashing the said decision;
(iii)����� an order of mandamus removing the said decision into the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland and directing the Family Care Centre to review or rehear the case.
(i)������� that judicial review in a case involving The Children (NI) Order 1995 should not be confined to Wednesbury principles where there a genuine concern of danger to the child.
(ii)������ Mr Lavery submits that the applicant in this case has suffered a breach of her rights under Article 6 of the ECHR including in particular the right to a fair hearing.� He argues that she was so denied by virtue of the refusal to adjourn the case to enable Dr McDonald to update his report, the court's failure to take into account Dr McDonald's report and the judge's failure to insist on Dr McDonald being called to give evidence albeit he �was aware of his presence in the precincts of the court.����
����������� It was erroneously submitted to me initially that Dr McDonald had been brought to the court as a result of a direction of a magistrate at the Family Proceedings Court.� In Re Downey (2000) NIQB 10 Higgins J dealt with circumstances of an Article 4 direction.� Under Article 4 of 1995 Order, a court considering any question with respect to a child under the Order may request a welfare report either orally or in writing.� Article 4 provides:
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.