Dowling & Ors -v- Judge Brennan & Anor [2010] IEHC 522 (11 November 2011)

Dowling & Ors -v- Judge Brennan & Anor [2010] IEHC 522 (11 November 2011)

The court held that the applicants failed to establish a real risk of unfair trial or injustice arising from the non-disclosure of the requested documents and software. The evidence showed that the Intoxilyser system had adequate safeguards, the presumption under s.17 was rebuttable, and the applicants had opportunities to challenge the evidence. The District Court judge acted within jurisdiction and discretion in refusing further disclosure. Judicial review was not available as a substitute for appeal in the absence of jurisdictional error or breach of fair procedures.

Citation
[2010] IEHC 522
Parties
Applicant: Patrick Dowling; Applicant: Patrick Hilliard; Applicant: Michael Halton; Applicant: Bronagh Cronin; Respondent: Judge Flann Brennan; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
11 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Application for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Disclosure in Criminal Proceedings, Fair Trial Rights, Breathalyser Evidence, Judicial Review of Lower Court Decisions, Presumption of Innocence, Right to Inspect Evidence
Criminal Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Disclosure in Criminal Proceedings Fair Trial Rights Breathalyser Evidence Judicial Review of Lower Court Decisions Presumption of Innocence +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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Dowling

Applicant

Patrick Hilliard

Applicant

Michael Halton

Applicant

Bronagh Cronin

Applicant

Judge Flann Brennan

Respondent

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to disclose documents and software relating to the Intoxilyser breathalyser machine violated the applicants' rights to fair procedures and a fair trial under the Constitution and Article 6 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the District Court judge erred in law by refusing to order further disclosure or to stay the prosecution
  3. 3 Whether the applicants were entitled to prohibition of further prosecution on grounds of risk of unfair trial

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicants failed to establish a real risk of unfair trial or injustice arising from the non-disclosure of the requested documents and software. The evidence showed that the Intoxilyser system had adequate safeguards, the presumption under s.17 was rebuttable, and the applicants had opportunities to challenge the evidence. The District Court judge acted within jurisdiction and discretion in refusing further disclosure. Judicial review was not available as a substitute for appeal in the absence of jurisdictional error or breach of fair procedures.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Refusal of order of certiorari quashing conviction of first applicant
  • Refusal of order of prohibition restraining further prosecution of second, third, and fourth applicants