Grendon v. Judges of the Dublin District Court & Anor [2002] IEHC 121 (16 October 2002)

Grendon v. Judges of the Dublin District Court & Anor [2002] IEHC 121 (16 October 2002)

Applicant failed to demonstrate, as a matter of probability, that the delay in service of summonses caused unfair prejudice to his defence; no sufficient material was put before the court to show inability to obtain a fair trial.

Citation
[2002] IEHC 121
Parties
Applicant: Brian Grendon; First Respondent: Judges Attached to the Dublin Metropolitan District Court; Second Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
16 October 2002
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Relief refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Delay in Prosecution, Fair Trial, Service of Summons, Road Traffic Offences
Criminal Law Administrative Law Delay in Prosecution Fair Trial Service of Summons Road Traffic Offences

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian Grendon

Applicant

Judges Attached to the Dublin Metropolitan District Court

First Respondent

Director of Public Prosecutions

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether inordinate delay in service of summonses prejudiced the applicant's right to a fair trial
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was unable to mount a defence due to delay
  3. 3 Whether prosecution should be restrained due to delay

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant failed to demonstrate, as a matter of probability, that the delay in service of summonses caused unfair prejudice to his defence; no sufficient material was put before the court to show inability to obtain a fair trial.

Court Disposition

Relief refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Application for order of prohibition and injunction refused.
  • No restraint on prosecution of summonses.