Blanchfield v. Hartnett [2002] IESC 41 (16 May 2002)

Blanchfield v. Hartnett [2002] IESC 41 (16 May 2002)

The Circuit Court, as the trial court, has jurisdiction to rule on the validity of orders made under the Bankers' Books Evidence Acts for the purpose of determining the admissibility of evidence at trial. Judicial review is not the exclusive remedy for such challenges. The High Court properly exercised its discretion in refusing to quash the orders by certiorari, as the trial judge can address any illegality. No culpable or prejudicial delay was established to justify prohibition of the trial.

Citation
[2002] IESC 41
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Patrick Blanchfield; Respondent: Judge William Harnett; Respondent: The Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondent: His Honour Judge C. Kelly
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
16 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review/appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Jurisdiction of Trial Courts, Bankers' Books Evidence Acts, Judicial Review in Criminal Proceedings, Delay and Fair Trial Rights
Criminal Law Evidence Judicial Review Admissibility of Evidence Jurisdiction of Trial Courts Bankers' Books Evidence Acts Judicial Review in Criminal Proceedings Delay and Fair Trial Rights

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

Parties

Patrick Blanchfield

Applicant/appellant

Judge William Harnett

Respondent

The Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

His Honour Judge C. Kelly

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review/appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether orders made under the Bankers' Books Evidence Acts were invalid for lack of jurisdiction and should be quashed by certiorari
  2. 2 Whether the Circuit Court has jurisdiction to rule on the validity of such orders in a criminal trial
  3. 3 Whether judicial review is the exclusive remedy for challenging such orders

Ratio Decidendi

The Circuit Court, as the trial court, has jurisdiction to rule on the validity of orders made under the Bankers' Books Evidence Acts for the purpose of determining the admissibility of evidence at trial. Judicial review is not the exclusive remedy for such challenges. The High Court properly exercised its discretion in refusing to quash the orders by certiorari, as the trial judge can address any illegality. No culpable or prejudicial delay was established to justify prohibition of the trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order of certiorari to quash the Bankers' Books Evidence Acts orders
  • No order of prohibition against the trial proceeding