Brady v. Haughton & Ors [2003] IEHC 99 (22 July 2003)

Brady v. Haughton & Ors [2003] IEHC 99 (22 July 2003)

The proceedings under s.51 of the Criminal Justice Act 1994 do not constitute the administration of justice and do not require notice to or a hearing for the applicant. The judge acts as a persona designata, not as the District Court, and the statute does not provide for the making of an order as was purportedly made. The applicant failed to establish a right to be heard or that his constitutional rights were breached. The purported order was misconceived and must be quashed, but the statutory scheme itself is not unconstitutional.

Citation
[2003] IEHC 99
Parties
Applicant: Jason Brady; First Respondent: District Judge Gerard Haughton; Second Respondent: The Commissioner of An Garda Síochána; Third Respondent: The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
22 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment on Application for Certiorari and Constitutional Declarations
Outcome
Application granted in part; purported order quashed; other reliefs refused.
Legal Topics
Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, Judicial Review, Fair Procedures, Property Rights, Administration of Justice, Police Property Act, Criminal Justice Act 1994, Constitutionality of Statutes
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law International Cooperation Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Judicial Review Fair Procedures Property Rights +4 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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jason Brady

Applicant

District Judge Gerard Haughton

First Respondent

The Commissioner of An Garda Síochána

Second Respondent

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment on Application for Certiorari and Constitutional Declarations

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order made under s.51 of the Criminal Justice Act 1994 was valid
  2. 2 Whether s.51 of the Criminal Justice Act 1994 is repugnant to the Constitution
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was entitled to notice and to be heard before the order was made

Ratio Decidendi

The proceedings under s.51 of the Criminal Justice Act 1994 do not constitute the administration of justice and do not require notice to or a hearing for the applicant. The judge acts as a persona designata, not as the District Court, and the statute does not provide for the making of an order as was purportedly made. The applicant failed to establish a right to be heard or that his constitutional rights were breached. The purported order was misconceived and must be quashed, but the statutory scheme itself is not unconstitutional.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; purported order quashed; other reliefs refused.

Orders

  • The purported order made by the first respondent is quashed.
  • All other reliefs sought by the applicant are refused.