Herron v. Haughton [2000] IESC 57 (19th May, 2000)

Herron v. Haughton [2000] IESC 57 (19th May, 2000)

The District Judge acted lawfully and fairly in controlling the proceedings, limiting evidence to relevant matters, and refusing to allow the prosecuting solicitor to be called as a witness. The applicant was not deprived of a defence by the manner in which previous convictions were handled, and procedural irregularities did not amount to injustice warranting judicial review relief.

Citation
[2000] IESC 57
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Patricia Herron; Defendant/respondent: District Judge Haughton; Defendant/respondent: Barry Galvin, Cork State Solicitor; Defendant/respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Defendant/respondent: Commissioner of An Garda Síochána; Defendant/respondent: Garda W. A. O’Connell; Defendant/respondent: Sergeant W. J. Gleeson; Defendant/respondent: Minister for Justice, Ireland; Defendant/respondent: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Refusal of Relief
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Fair Hearing, Road Traffic Offences, Procedural Fairness, Calling Witnesses, Previous Convictions
Administrative Law Criminal Law Judicial Review Fair Hearing Road Traffic Offences Procedural Fairness Calling Witnesses Previous Convictions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patricia Herron

Plaintiff/appellant

District Judge Haughton

Defendant/respondent

Barry Galvin, Cork State Solicitor

Defendant/respondent

Director of Public Prosecutions

Defendant/respondent

Commissioner of An Garda Síochána

Defendant/respondent

Garda W. A. O’Connell

Defendant/respondent

Sergeant W. J. Gleeson

Defendant/respondent

Minister for Justice, Ireland

Defendant/respondent

Attorney General

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Refusal of Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to permit applicant to call evidence regarding previous convictions deprived her of a defence
  2. 2 Whether refusal to allow applicant to call prosecuting solicitor as witness was lawful
  3. 3 Whether procedural irregularities in hearing and notification justified quashing convictions

Ratio Decidendi

The District Judge acted lawfully and fairly in controlling the proceedings, limiting evidence to relevant matters, and refusing to allow the prosecuting solicitor to be called as a witness. The applicant was not deprived of a defence by the manner in which previous convictions were handled, and procedural irregularities did not amount to injustice warranting judicial review relief.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order of O’Higgins J. affirmed
  • No relief by way of judicial review granted