Gordon v The Director of Public Prosecutions & Anor [2005] IEHC 472 (09 November 2005)

Gordon v The Director of Public Prosecutions & Anor [2005] IEHC 472 (09 November 2005)

The applicant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the prosecution knowingly or recklessly allowed false evidence to be adduced or that the conviction was obtained by perjury or concealment of evidence. Any confusion in the evidence was clarified before the District Judge, who acted in accordance with law and fair procedures. There was no denial of natural justice or fair procedures justifying certiorari.

Citation
[2005] IEHC 472
Parties
Applicant: Michael Gordon; First Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Second Respondent: District Judge Oliver McGuinness
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
09 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / High Court Judgment on Application for Certiorari and Injunction
Outcome
Application for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Fair Procedures, Natural Justice, Perjury, Prosecutorial Conduct, Certiorari, Road Traffic Offences
Criminal Law Judicial Review Administrative Law Fair Procedures Natural Justice Perjury Prosecutorial Conduct Certiorari +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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Gordon

Applicant

Director of Public Prosecutions

First Respondent

District Judge Oliver McGuinness

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / High Court Judgment on Application for Certiorari and Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's conviction was obtained by perjury or concealment of evidence
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution knowingly allowed false evidence to be adduced
  3. 3 Whether there was a denial of fair procedures or natural justice justifying certiorari

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the prosecution knowingly or recklessly allowed false evidence to be adduced or that the conviction was obtained by perjury or concealment of evidence. Any confusion in the evidence was clarified before the District Judge, who acted in accordance with law and fair procedures. There was no denial of natural justice or fair procedures justifying certiorari.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Application for certiorari quashing the District Court order refused
  • Application for injunction against further prosecution refused