Massoud v. Watkins & Anor [2004] IEHC 435 (22 June 2004)

Massoud v. Watkins & Anor [2004] IEHC 435 (22 June 2004)

The applicant's re-arrest under s.10(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1984 was lawful only for the purpose of charging him forthwith with the offence for which he was re-arrested. As he was not charged forthwith with that offence but instead charged later with a different offence, his detention became unlawful and constituted a breach of his constitutional right to liberty.

Citation
[2004] IEHC 435
Parties
Applicant: Emad Massoud; First Respondent: Judge Ann Watkins; Second Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
22 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on Substantive Application
Outcome
Application for prohibition granted in principle, pending submissions on the appropriate order.
Legal Topics
Arrest and Detention, Judicial Review, Personal Liberty, Interpretation of Statutes
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Arrest and Detention Judicial Review Personal Liberty Interpretation of Statutes

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Emad Massoud

Applicant

Judge Ann Watkins

First Respondent

Director of Public Prosecutions

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Substantive Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's re-arrest and subsequent detention were lawful under s.10(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1984
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was charged 'forthwith' as required by statute after re-arrest
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's constitutional right to liberty was breached

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's re-arrest under s.10(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1984 was lawful only for the purpose of charging him forthwith with the offence for which he was re-arrested. As he was not charged forthwith with that offence but instead charged later with a different offence, his detention became unlawful and constituted a breach of his constitutional right to liberty.

Court Disposition

Application for prohibition granted in principle, pending submissions on the appropriate order.