O'Keeffe -v- Judge Joseph Mangan & Anor [2012] IEHC 195 (18 May 2012)

O'Keeffe -v- Judge Joseph Mangan & Anor [2012] IEHC 195 (18 May 2012)

The recall of Garda Barriscale to confirm furnishing the yellow slip was a formal matter, not going to the merits; substantive compliance with s. 18 of the Road Traffic Act 1994 was demonstrated, and no prejudice or unfairness occurred. The District Judge acted within discretion and did not deny fair procedures.

Citation
[2012] IEHC 195
Parties
Applicant: James O'Keeffe; First Named Respondent: Judge Joseph Mangan; Second Named Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
18 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Relief refused; judicial review application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Road Traffic Offences, Judicial Review, Fair Procedures, Recall of Witnesses
Criminal Law Administrative Law Road Traffic Offences Judicial Review Fair Procedures Recall of Witnesses

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James O'Keeffe

Applicant

Judge Joseph Mangan

First Named Respondent

Director of Public Prosecutions

Second Named Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the District Judge erred in recalling a prosecution witness after the close of the prosecution case to provide evidence of compliance with s. 18 of the Road Traffic Act 1994
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was denied fair procedures or prejudiced by the recall and additional evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The recall of Garda Barriscale to confirm furnishing the yellow slip was a formal matter, not going to the merits; substantive compliance with s. 18 of the Road Traffic Act 1994 was demonstrated, and no prejudice or unfairness occurred. The District Judge acted within discretion and did not deny fair procedures.

Court Disposition

Relief refused; judicial review application dismissed.