Lowry -v- DPP & Anor [2016] IEHC 92 (23 February 2016)

Lowry -v- DPP & Anor [2016] IEHC 92 (23 February 2016)

Applicant failed to establish improper motive, policy, or abdication of function by DPP; Appeal Commissioners' determination does not preclude prosecution for offences alleged; pre-trial publicity and alleged media manipulation do not bar fair trial; conduct of authorities not shown to be oppressive or unlawful; applicant has no right to trial in specific venue; judicial review not appropriate for determining guilt or innocence in advance of trial.

Citation
[2016] IEHC 92
Parties
Applicant: Michael Lowry; First Named Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Second Named Respondent: His Honour Judge Thomas Teehan
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
23 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Prosecution Policy, Fair Trial Rights, Pre Trial Publicity, Tax Offences, Corporate Governance, Judicial Discretion
Criminal Law Tax Law Company Law Judicial Review Prosecution Policy Fair Trial Rights Pre Trial Publicity Tax Offences +2 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 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Lowry

Applicant

Director of Public Prosecutions

First Named Respondent

His Honour Judge Thomas Teehan

Second Named Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether continuation of prosecution is improper following Appeal Commissioners' determination
  2. 2 Whether pre-trial publicity and alleged manipulation prejudiced fair trial rights
  3. 3 Whether conduct of authorities and selective prosecution constitutes oppression

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant failed to establish improper motive, policy, or abdication of function by DPP; Appeal Commissioners' determination does not preclude prosecution for offences alleged; pre-trial publicity and alleged media manipulation do not bar fair trial; conduct of authorities not shown to be oppressive or unlawful; applicant has no right to trial in specific venue; judicial review not appropriate for determining guilt or innocence in advance of trial.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Application for prohibition of prosecution denied
  • Application for prohibition pending investigations denied