Phipps -v- Judge Hogan [2007] IESC 68 (20 December 2007)

Phipps -v- Judge Hogan [2007] IESC 68 (20 December 2007)

There is no express or implied statutory or inherent jurisdiction for a trial judge to require a defendant to give advance notice of the grounds for an application to dismiss charges under s.4E of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967 (as amended); such a requirement would be inconsistent with the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence.

Citation
[2007] IESC 68
Parties
Applicant/respondent: Patrick Phipps; Respondent/appellant: Judge Desmond Hogan; Respondent/appellant: The Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
21 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review/appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; order of Circuit Court judge requiring advance notice of grounds quashed.
Legal Topics
Notice of Grounds in Criminal Procedure, Right to Fair Trial, Presumption of Innocence, Judicial Case Management, Interpretation of Criminal Procedure Act 1967 S.4 E
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Procedural Law Notice of Grounds in Criminal Procedure Right to Fair Trial Presumption of Innocence Judicial Case Management Interpretation of Criminal Procedure Act 1967 S.4 E

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Phipps

Applicant/respondent

Judge Desmond Hogan

Respondent/appellant

The Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review/appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a trial judge has jurisdiction to require a defendant to give advance notice of the grounds for an application to dismiss charges under s.4E of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967 (as amended)
  2. 2 Whether such a requirement is implied by statute or inherent judicial power
  3. 3 Whether such a requirement is consistent with the right to a fair trial and presumption of innocence

Ratio Decidendi

There is no express or implied statutory or inherent jurisdiction for a trial judge to require a defendant to give advance notice of the grounds for an application to dismiss charges under s.4E of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967 (as amended); such a requirement would be inconsistent with the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; order of Circuit Court judge requiring advance notice of grounds quashed.

Orders

  • Quash the order of the Circuit Court judge requiring disclosure of grounds for s.4E application.
  • Set aside the High Court order upholding the requirement for advance notice of grounds.