Koranteng -v- Judge Sheridan & Anor [2009] IEHC 31 (12 January 2009)

Koranteng -v- Judge Sheridan & Anor [2009] IEHC 31 (12 January 2009)

The application was not appropriate for an Article 40.4.2 inquiry because the conduct complained of was that of a third party (the District Judge), not the detainer, and the only available remedy would be unconditional release, which would be disproportionate. Judicial review is the appropriate remedy for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] IEHC 31
Parties
Applicant: Frank Koranteng; Respondent: District Judge Sheridan; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
12 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Granted; Application Originally Under Article 40.4.2 Converted to Judicial Review
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review granted; application under Article 40.4.2 refused
Legal Topics
Detention, Bail, Judicial Review, Jurisdiction of District Court, Article 40.4.2 Inquiry, Immigration Offences
Criminal Law Immigration Law Constitutional Law Detention Bail Judicial Review Jurisdiction of District Court Article 40.4.2 Inquiry +1 more

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Frank Koranteng

Applicant

District Judge Sheridan

Respondent

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Granted; Application Originally Under Article 40.4.2 Converted to Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's continued detention was lawful under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether the District Judge acted within jurisdiction in refusing to entertain a bail application and a guilty plea
  3. 3 Whether judicial review is the appropriate remedy

Ratio Decidendi

The application was not appropriate for an Article 40.4.2 inquiry because the conduct complained of was that of a third party (the District Judge), not the detainer, and the only available remedy would be unconditional release, which would be disproportionate. Judicial review is the appropriate remedy for challenging the District Judge's actions.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review granted; application under Article 40.4.2 refused

Orders

  • Application to proceed as Article 40.4.2 inquiry refused
  • Application treated as leave to apply for judicial review and granted