Tracey v Judge Anderson (Unapproved) [2020] IESC 76 (21 December 2020)

Tracey v Judge Anderson (Unapproved) [2020] IESC 76 (21 December 2020)

The Supreme Court held that the High Court's findings of fact, based on both affidavit and oral evidence, were supported by credible evidence and could not be disturbed. The procedural rulings of the District Court were within jurisdiction and did not deny the applicant fair procedures. There was no basis for judicial review or for a case stated, and no objective bias was established. The appeal was dismissed and the High Court order affirmed.

Citation
[2020] IESC 76
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Kevin Tracey; Respondent: District Judge David Anderson; Respondent: Kevin Grogan; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
21 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Appellate Review of Findings of Fact, Fair Procedures, Service of Summons, Judicial Control of Proceedings, Objective Bias, Case Stated Procedure
Criminal Law Judicial Review Procedural Law Appellate Review of Findings of Fact Fair Procedures Service of Summons Judicial Control of Proceedings Objective Bias +1 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 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kevin Tracey

Applicant/appellant

District Judge David Anderson

Respondent

Kevin Grogan

Respondent

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the District Court's procedural rulings denied the applicant fair procedures or jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether the High Court erred in refusing judicial review of District Court rulings
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was denied legal assistance or equality of arms

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the High Court's findings of fact, based on both affidavit and oral evidence, were supported by credible evidence and could not be disturbed. The procedural rulings of the District Court were within jurisdiction and did not deny the applicant fair procedures. There was no basis for judicial review or for a case stated, and no objective bias was established. The appeal was dismissed and the High Court order affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order of the High Court affirmed
  • No order in judicial review