Nevin v. Crowley [2000] IESC 47 (17th February, 2000)

Nevin v. Crowley [2000] IESC 47 (17th February, 2000)

The District Judge failed to afford the respondent a fair hearing by imposing sentence in the absence of his legal representatives, in breach of the fundamental constitutional right to fair procedures. The High Court was correct to quash both the conviction and sentence, and the existence of an appeal did not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2000] IESC 47
Parties
Appellant: Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondent: Patrick Nevin; First Named Respondent: Mr Justice O’Sullivan; Second Named Respondent: second-named respondent
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court order upheld
Legal Topics
Fair Procedures, Audi Alteram Partem, Certiorari, Right to Legal Representation, Remittal Discretion, Natural Justice
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Fair Procedures Audi Alteram Partem Certiorari Right to Legal Representation Remittal Discretion +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Appellant

Patrick Nevin

Respondent

Mr Justice O’Sullivan

First Named Respondent

second-named respondent

Second Named Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the District Judge denied the respondent a fair hearing by imposing sentence in absence of legal representatives
  2. 2 Whether the High Court was correct to quash both conviction and sentence
  3. 3 Whether the existence of an appeal precluded certiorari

Ratio Decidendi

The District Judge failed to afford the respondent a fair hearing by imposing sentence in the absence of his legal representatives, in breach of the fundamental constitutional right to fair procedures. The High Court was correct to quash both the conviction and sentence, and the existence of an appeal did not preclude certiorari. Remittal to the District Court was properly refused in the exercise of judicial discretion given the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court order upheld

Orders

  • Order of certiorari quashing conviction and sentence affirmed
  • No remittal to District Court