Director of Public Prosecutions (At The Suit Of Garda Fergus Grant) v Nicolae [2018] IEHC 528 (02 October 2018)

Director of Public Prosecutions (At The Suit Of Garda Fergus Grant) v Nicolae [2018] IEHC 528 (02 October 2018)

The High Court declined to answer the questions posed due to an evidential deficit (lack of evidence heard by the District Judge) and because the District Court judge is not entitled to refer questions of constitutionality or the validity of administrative schemes by way of case stated.

Citation
[2018] IEHC 528
Parties
Prosecutor: Director of Public Prosecutions (At The Suit Of Garda Fergus Grant); Accused: Mihai Nicolae
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
02 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Consultative Case Stated / High Court Determination of Questions of Law Referred by District Court
Outcome
Consultative case stated not entertained; questions not answered.
Legal Topics
Adult Caution Scheme, Begging Offences, Case Stated Procedure, Judicial Discretion, Equality Before the Law
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Adult Caution Scheme Begging Offences Case Stated Procedure Judicial Discretion Equality Before the Law

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions (At The Suit Of Garda Fergus Grant)

Prosecutor

Mihai Nicolae

Accused

Procedural Posture

Consultative Case Stated / High Court Determination of Questions of Law Referred by District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused was treated unequally compared to persons charged with other minor offences due to ineligibility for the Adult Caution Scheme
  2. 2 Whether a District Court judge can direct Gardaí to apply the Adult Caution Scheme to a non-Schedule Offence
  3. 3 Whether any resulting inequality renders the prosecution unfair and warrants striking out the matter

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court declined to answer the questions posed due to an evidential deficit (lack of evidence heard by the District Judge) and because the District Court judge is not entitled to refer questions of constitutionality or the validity of administrative schemes by way of case stated.

Court Disposition

Consultative case stated not entertained; questions not answered.