O'Regan v. D.P.P. [1998] IEHC 112 (9th July, 1998)

O'Regan v. D.P.P. [1998] IEHC 112 (9th July, 1998)

The prosecution was not obliged to call Dr. Prendiville as a witness, as statutory provisions obviate the necessity for calling the doctor and the prosecution's discretion was not exercised improperly. However, the District Judge erred in refusing to allow the applicant to call Dr. Prendiville as a defence witness,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1998] IEHC 112
Parties
Applicant: Paul O'Regan; First Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Second Respondent: District Judge McGruairc
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on Application for Order of Prohibition and Related Reliefs
Outcome
Partial relief granted
Legal Topics
Right to Fair Trial, Calling of Witnesses, Prosecution Discretion, Road Traffic Offences, Evidential Procedure
Criminal Law Judicial Review Constitutional Law Right to Fair Trial Calling of Witnesses Prosecution Discretion Road Traffic Offences Evidential Procedure

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul O'Regan

Applicant

Director of Public Prosecutions

First Respondent

District Judge McGruairc

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Application for Order of Prohibition and Related Reliefs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution was obliged to call Dr. Prendiville as a witness
  2. 2 Whether the District Judge erred in refusing to allow the applicant to call Dr. Prendiville as a defence witness
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's right to a fair trial was infringed

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution was not obliged to call Dr. Prendiville as a witness, as statutory provisions obviate the necessity for calling the doctor and the prosecution's discretion was not exercised improperly. However, the District Judge erred in refusing to allow the applicant to call Dr. Prendiville as a defence witness, and the applicant is entitled to call him in his defence.

Court Disposition

Partial relief granted

Orders

  • Declaration that the applicant is entitled to call Dr. Prendiville as a witness in his defence
  • Other relief sought by the applicant refused