Cullen -v- District Judge McHugh & Anor [2013] IEHC 444 (16 April 2013)

Cullen -v- District Judge McHugh & Anor [2013] IEHC 444 (16 April 2013)

There was compelling evidence of damage, the statutory presumptions under the Criminal Damage Act 1991 applied and were not rebutted, the quantum of damage was irrelevant, and the District Judge was entitled to refuse to state a case as the application was frivolous.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] IEHC 444
Parties
Appellant: Kenneth Cullen; Respondent: District Judge David McHugh; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
16 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on Application for Order to State a Case
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Criminal Damage, Presumptions in Criminal Law, Burden of Proof, Case Stated Procedure
Criminal Law Judicial Review Criminal Damage Presumptions in Criminal Law Burden of Proof Case Stated Procedure

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenneth Cullen

Appellant

District Judge David McHugh

Respondent

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Application for Order to State a Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was evidence before the District Court that the applicant caused damage to the door
  2. 2 Whether the presumption under s.7(2)(a) of the Criminal Damage Act 1991 was set aside by naming the property owner in the charge sheet
  3. 3 Whether the presumption of no authority to damage under s.7(2)(b) was rebutted by the applicant's evidence

Ratio Decidendi

There was compelling evidence of damage, the statutory presumptions under the Criminal Damage Act 1991 applied and were not rebutted, the quantum of damage was irrelevant, and the District Judge was entitled to refuse to state a case as the application was frivolous.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Refusal of application for an order under s.5 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1857 requiring the District Judge to state a case