Brady -v- Judge Haughton & Ors [2005] IESC 54 (29 July 2005)

Brady -v- Judge Haughton & Ors [2005] IESC 54 (29 July 2005)

The Supreme Court held that the procedures under s. 51 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1994 are administrative and not the administration of justice. The appellant was not entitled to notice or participation in the process, as no adjudication of rights or guilt occurs. The designated judge's function is limited to receiving and identifying evidence specified in the request for transmission to the requesting authority. Evidence outside the scope of the request, such as medical records and the mobile phone, should not be transmitted. The process does not breach constitutional rights to fair procedures, property, privacy, or bodily integrity. Evidence transmitted may only be used for the...

Citation
[2005] IESC 54
Parties
Applicant / Appellant: Jason Brady; Respondent: District Court Judge Gerard Haughton; Respondent: The Commissioner of An Garda Síochána; Respondent: The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform; Notice Party: The Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
29 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part and varied on one ground only.
Legal Topics
Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, Transmission of Evidence, Procedural Fairness, Administration of Justice, Judicial Review, Statutory Interpretation
Criminal Law International Cooperation Constitutional Law Administrative Law Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Transmission of Evidence Procedural Fairness Administration of Justice +2 more

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jason Brady

Applicant / Appellant

District Court Judge Gerard Haughton

Respondent

The Commissioner of An Garda Síochána

Respondent

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

Respondent

The Attorney General

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether procedures under s. 51 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1994 constitute the administration of justice requiring notice and participation by the affected person.
  2. 2 Whether the procedures breached the appellant's constitutional rights to property, privacy, bodily integrity, and fair procedures.
  3. 3 Whether the District Court Judge exceeded his powers by receiving evidence outside the scope of the request.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the procedures under s. 51 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1994 are administrative and not the administration of justice. The appellant was not entitled to notice or participation in the process, as no adjudication of rights or guilt occurs. The designated judge's function is limited to receiving and identifying evidence specified in the request for transmission to the requesting authority. Evidence outside the scope of the request, such as medical records and the mobile phone, should not be transmitted. The process does not breach constitutional rights to fair procedures, property, privacy, or bodily integrity. Evidence transmitted may only be used for the...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part and varied on one ground only.

Orders

  • The decision of the designated judge is affirmed except in relation to the medical records and the mobile phone, which are not to be transmitted.
  • No order is made in relation to the evidence concerning medical records, as the Minister undertook not to transmit them.