Quinlivan v. Conroy [1998] IEHC 212; [1999] 1 IR 271 (3rd April, 1998)

Quinlivan v. Conroy [1998] IEHC 212; [1999] 1 IR 271 (3rd April, 1998)

The application for discovery was refused because the Respondents were not, and had never been, in possession, custody, or power of the documents sought, and thus could not be compelled to provide discovery under the Rules of the Superior Courts.

Citation
[1999] 1 IR 271
Parties
Applicant: Quinlivan; Respondent: Conroy and Another
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Extradition Appeal / Application for Discovery Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application for discovery dismissed
Legal Topics
Discovery, Sovereign Immunity, Political Offence Exception, Extradition Procedure
Criminal Law Extradition Law Civil Procedure Discovery Sovereign Immunity Political Offence Exception Extradition Procedure

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Quinlivan

Applicant

Conroy and Another

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extradition Appeal / Application for Discovery Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondents are obliged to provide discovery of documents in extradition proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the Respondents have possession, custody, or power over the requested documents
  3. 3 Whether sovereign immunity precludes discovery against foreign police authorities

Ratio Decidendi

The application for discovery was refused because the Respondents were not, and had never been, in possession, custody, or power of the documents sought, and thus could not be compelled to provide discovery under the Rules of the Superior Courts.

Court Disposition

Application for discovery dismissed

Orders

  • Application for discovery refused
  • Proceedings to continue to appeal on extradition