Dillon -v- Judge Mc Hugh & Ors [2011] IEHC 8 (14 January 2011)

Dillon -v- Judge Mc Hugh & Ors [2011] IEHC 8 (14 January 2011)

The return for trial was validly made under s. 4A of the Criminal Procedure Act 1967 as the prosecutor had consented, and the District Court Judge had the necessary powers. The Director of Public Prosecutions was not bound to enter a nolle prosequi and was entitled to proceed with the prosecution. No unfairness or prejudice arose to the applicant.

Citation
[2011] IEHC 8
Parties
Applicant: Eamonn Dillon; Respondent: Judge David McHugh; Respondent: The Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondent: The Judges of the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
14 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on Application for Judicial Review
Outcome
Relief refused
Legal Topics
Hybrid Offences, Jurisdiction of District Court, Return for Trial, Consent of Prosecutor, Nolle Prosequi, Summary Disposal, Arson
Criminal Law Judicial Review Criminal Procedure Hybrid Offences Jurisdiction of District Court Return for Trial Consent of Prosecutor Nolle Prosequi +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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eamonn Dillon

Applicant

Judge David McHugh

Respondent

The Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

The Judges of the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Application for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the District Court Judge had jurisdiction to send the applicant forward for trial on a hybrid offence after declining summary jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether the return for trial was valid under s. 4A of the Criminal Procedure Act 1967
  3. 3 Whether the Director of Public Prosecutions was bound to enter a nolle prosequi after indicating an intention to do so

Ratio Decidendi

The return for trial was validly made under s. 4A of the Criminal Procedure Act 1967 as the prosecutor had consented, and the District Court Judge had the necessary powers. The Director of Public Prosecutions was not bound to enter a nolle prosequi and was entitled to proceed with the prosecution. No unfairness or prejudice arose to the applicant.

Court Disposition

Relief refused

Orders

  • Application for judicial review refused