Whelan v. Kirby & Anor [2004] IESC 17 (1 March 2004)

Whelan v. Kirby & Anor [2004] IESC 17 (1 March 2004)

The District Court judge's refusal to entertain the application for inspection of the intoximeter constituted procedural unfairness and a denial of fair trial rights, warranting quashing of the convictions. In cases where the District Court order failed to record a conviction, the order was invalid on its face under section 14 of the Courts Act, 1971.

Citation
[2004] IESC 17
Parties
Applicant/appellant: David Whelan; Respondent: Judge Brian Kirby; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
01 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (appeal) / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Refusal of Judicial Review
Outcome
Appeals allowed; convictions quashed by certiorari.
Legal Topics
Fair Trial, Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Presumption of Evidence, Inspection of Evidence, Error on the Face of the Record
Criminal Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Fair Trial Judicial Review Procedural Fairness Presumption of Evidence Inspection of Evidence +1 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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Whelan

Applicant/appellant

Judge Brian Kirby

Respondent

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (appeal) / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Refusal of Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the District Court judge erred in refusing to entertain an application for inspection of an intoximeter used in prosecution under the Road Traffic Act.
  2. 2 Whether failure to record a conviction on the face of the District Court order invalidates the order.

Ratio Decidendi

The District Court judge's refusal to entertain the application for inspection of the intoximeter constituted procedural unfairness and a denial of fair trial rights, warranting quashing of the convictions. In cases where the District Court order failed to record a conviction, the order was invalid on its face under section 14 of the Courts Act, 1971.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; convictions quashed by certiorari.

Orders

  • Order of certiorari quashing the District Court convictions in each of the seven cases.
  • In four cases (Stack, Fitzpatrick, Mulhall, Whelan), certiorari also granted on the ground of error on the face of the record.