Cullen v District Judge McHugh & Anor [2019] IECA 139 (09 May 2019)

Cullen v District Judge McHugh & Anor [2019] IECA 139 (09 May 2019)

The District Judge was entitled to refuse to state a case as frivolous because the statutory presumptions under s.7(2) of the Criminal Damage Act 1991 were not rebutted, the prosecution was not required to prove quantum of damage, and there was sufficient evidence to support conviction; the High Court correctly applied the law and dismissed the application.

Citation
[2019] IECA 139
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Kenneth Cullen; Respondent: District Judge David McHugh; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
09 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Criminal Damage, Statutory Presumptions, Case Stated Procedure, Burden of Proof
Criminal Law Judicial Review Criminal Damage Statutory Presumptions Case Stated Procedure Burden of Proof

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenneth Cullen

Applicant/appellant

District Judge David McHugh

Respondent

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the District Judge was correct to refuse to state a case as frivolous under s.4 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1857
  2. 2 Interpretation and application of statutory presumptions under s.7(2) of the Criminal Damage Act 1991
  3. 3 Whether the prosecution was required to prove ownership, authority, and quantum of damage as alleged in the charge sheet

Ratio Decidendi

The District Judge was entitled to refuse to state a case as frivolous because the statutory presumptions under s.7(2) of the Criminal Damage Act 1991 were not rebutted, the prosecution was not required to prove quantum of damage, and there was sufficient evidence to support conviction; the High Court correctly applied the law and dismissed the application.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; District Judge's refusal to state a case upheld.