Berry -v- His Honour Judge Hickson & Ors [2012] IEHC 320 (26 July 2012)

Berry -v- His Honour Judge Hickson & Ors [2012] IEHC 320 (26 July 2012)

Applicant failed to discharge the onus of demonstrating a real risk of unavoidable unfairness; trial judge was managing disclosure issues and had committed to stopping trial in case of improper non-disclosure. Judicial review intervention was not warranted as criminal proceedings belong in criminal courts and legal aid complaint was not substantiated by evidence.

Citation
[2012] IEHC 320
Parties
Applicant: Michael Berry; First Respondent: His Honour Judge Barry Hickson; Second Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Third Respondent: Department of Justice and Law Reform Ireland; Fourth Respondent: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
26 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Leave for Judicial Review, Post Trial Commencement
Outcome
Relief refused; application for judicial review denied.
Legal Topics
Disclosure, Legal Aid, Fair Trial, Judicial Review, Prohibition Orders
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Disclosure Legal Aid Fair Trial Judicial Review Prohibition Orders

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Berry

Applicant

His Honour Judge Barry Hickson

First Respondent

Director of Public Prosecutions

Second Respondent

Department of Justice and Law Reform Ireland

Third Respondent

Attorney General

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Leave for Judicial Review, Post Trial Commencement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to provide full disclosure breached applicant's right to fair trial
  2. 2 Whether refusal to provide legal aid for disclosure activities breached applicant's rights
  3. 3 Whether judicial review should intervene in ongoing criminal trial

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant failed to discharge the onus of demonstrating a real risk of unavoidable unfairness; trial judge was managing disclosure issues and had committed to stopping trial in case of improper non-disclosure. Judicial review intervention was not warranted as criminal proceedings belong in criminal courts and legal aid complaint was not substantiated by evidence.

Court Disposition

Relief refused; application for judicial review denied.

Orders

  • No prohibition order granted.
  • No certiorari order granted.