Burns -v- District Judge John O'Neill & ors [2015] IEHC 553 (18 August 2015)

Burns -v- District Judge John O'Neill & ors [2015] IEHC 553 (18 August 2015)

The refusal to adjourn did not breach the applicant's rights as the District Judge's role was administrative and limited to receiving and transmitting evidence under the Act. No substantive case was made that the applicant's fair trial or privacy rights would be breached by the release of the records, and the applicant failed to provide evidence or submissions to support the declarations sought.

Citation
[2015] IEHC 553
Parties
Applicant: Michael Burns; First Respondent: District Judge John O’Neill; Second Respondent: The Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence; Third and Fourth Respondents: The Attorney General and Ireland
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
18 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment on Application for Certiorari and Declaratory Relief
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Refusal of Adjournment, Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, Disclosure of Medical Records, Article 6 ECHR (fair Trial), Article 8 ECHR (privacy), Procedural Fairness, Doctor/patient Confidentiality
Criminal Law Judicial Review Human Rights Law Mutual Legal Assistance Refusal of Adjournment Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Disclosure of Medical Records Article 6 ECHR (fair Trial) +3 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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Burns

Applicant

District Judge John O’Neill

First Respondent

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence

Second Respondent

The Attorney General and Ireland

Third and Fourth Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment on Application for Certiorari and Declaratory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether refusal to adjourn the District Court hearing breached fair procedures and the applicant's rights
  2. 2 Whether release of medical records would breach the applicant's constitutional and ECHR rights
  3. 3 Whether the District Judge applied the correct legal test under the Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Act 2008

Ratio Decidendi

The refusal to adjourn did not breach the applicant's rights as the District Judge's role was administrative and limited to receiving and transmitting evidence under the Act. No substantive case was made that the applicant's fair trial or privacy rights would be breached by the release of the records, and the applicant failed to provide evidence or submissions to support the declarations sought.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Reliefs sought by the applicant are refused