Whelan v. Kirby & Anor [2003] IEHC 124 (7 November 2003)

Whelan v. Kirby & Anor [2003] IEHC 124 (7 November 2003)

Applicants failed to demonstrate that refusal to adjourn hearings for inspection of intoximeter deprived them of fair trial or natural justice. No evidence was provided as to what could have been determined by inspection a year after use. District Court judge acted within jurisdiction and defects in orders were not sufficient to warrant quashing convictions.

Citation
[2003] IEHC 124
Parties
Applicant: David Whelan; Plaintiff: Ciaran Fitzpatrick; Plaintiff: Dympna Stack; Plaintiff: Larry Clarke; Plaintiff: Eoin Mulhall; Plaintiff: Tara Henry; Plaintiff: Jason Moffatt; Respondent: Judge Brian Kirby; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
07 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
applications refused
Legal Topics
Fair Trial, Natural Justice, Evidentiary Presumption, Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Inspection of Evidence
Criminal Law Administrative Law Fair Trial Natural Justice Evidentiary Presumption Judicial Review Procedural Fairness Inspection of Evidence

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Whelan

Applicant

Ciaran Fitzpatrick

Plaintiff

Dympna Stack

Plaintiff

Larry Clarke

Plaintiff

Eoin Mulhall

Plaintiff

Tara Henry

Plaintiff

Jason Moffatt

Plaintiff

Judge Brian Kirby

Respondent

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether refusal to permit inspection of intoximeter apparatus deprived applicants of fair trial
  2. 2 Whether District Court orders were defective and lacked jurisdiction on their face
  3. 3 Whether delay in application for judicial review was justified

Ratio Decidendi

Applicants failed to demonstrate that refusal to adjourn hearings for inspection of intoximeter deprived them of fair trial or natural justice. No evidence was provided as to what could have been determined by inspection a year after use. District Court judge acted within jurisdiction and defects in orders were not sufficient to warrant quashing convictions.

Court Disposition

applications refused