Carey v. Hussey [1999] IEHC 71; [2000] 2 ILRM 401 (21st December, 1999)

Carey v. Hussey [1999] IEHC 71; [2000] 2 ILRM 401 (21st December, 1999)

The District Judge had discretion to accept a photocopy as evidence or to adjourn for a certified copy; the adjournment did not constitute inappropriate intervention or unfair procedure, and the application for prohibition was incorrectly founded.

Citation
[2000] 2 ILRM 401
Parties
Applicant: Patrick Carey; First Respondent: District Judge (Kilmainham District Court); Second Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Adjournment Discretion, Prohibition Order, Domestic Violence Act
Criminal Law Evidence Judicial Review Admissibility of Evidence Adjournment Discretion Prohibition Order Domestic Violence Act

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Carey

Applicant

District Judge (Kilmainham District Court)

First Respondent

Director of Public Prosecutions

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate form of a Court Order as proof in a criminal prosecution?
  2. 2 In what circumstances may a District Judge adjourn a criminal prosecution to cure procedural defects?

Ratio Decidendi

The District Judge had discretion to accept a photocopy as evidence or to adjourn for a certified copy; the adjournment did not constitute inappropriate intervention or unfair procedure, and the application for prohibition was incorrectly founded.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for Order of Prohibition dismissed