Braddish v. D.P.P. [2000] IEHC 98 (21st December, 2000)

Braddish v. D.P.P. [2000] IEHC 98 (21st December, 2000)

Relief refused because prosecution intends to rely on inculpatory statement, not video or photographic stills; applicant failed to move promptly for relief; absence of video does not deprive applicant of fair trial in these circumstances.

Citation
[2000] IEHC 98
Parties
Applicant: Daniel Braddish; First Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Second Respondent: Circuit Court Judge (unnamed)
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Fair Trial, Disclosure of Evidence, Delay in Application, Prohibition of Prosecution
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Judicial Review Fair Trial Disclosure of Evidence Delay in Application Prohibition of Prosecution

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Braddish

Applicant

Director of Public Prosecutions

First Respondent

Circuit Court Judge (unnamed)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to provide video evidence deprives applicant of fair trial
  2. 2 Whether delay in seeking evidence or judicial review bars relief
  3. 3 Whether prosecution relying on inculpatory statement rather than identification evidence affects fairness

Ratio Decidendi

Relief refused because prosecution intends to rely on inculpatory statement, not video or photographic stills; applicant failed to move promptly for relief; absence of video does not deprive applicant of fair trial in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Application refused