Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court refuses application for judicial review of committal warrant imprisoning young offender who failed to prosecute his appeal after being sentenced to a custodial sentence in the District Court, on the grounds, inter alia, that the Circuit Court had ample jurisdiction to issue a committal warrant on appeal in execution of an affirmed order of the District Court made on the striking out of an appeal by reason of the failure of a child appellant to prosecute it.
Criminal law – sentencing – jurisdiction of the Circuit Court when dealing with an appeal against severity of sentence for detention imposed upon a young offender who fails to prosecute his appeal – section 112 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (as amended by section 65 of the Road Traffic Act 1968 and section 18 of the Road Traffic Act 2006) – District Judge imposed a sentence of four months' detention, which was appealed – no explanation as to notice party’s non-attendance on various dates to prosecute his appeal – conviction affirmed and committal warrant issued in the absence of the notice party – no place available in Oberstown, which was named in the warrant – section 143 of the Children Act 2001 as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 2006 – whether the Circuit Judge failed to make the necessary inquiry concerning the availability of a place which is required by section 143 before making the order affirming the four-month period of detention imposed in the District Court – section 144 of the Children Act 2001 – Order 41 Rule 5 of the Circuit Court Rules – whether the Circuit Court was obliged to consider the matters set out in section 143(1) and (2) before affirming the order of the District Court – 84 rule 21 of the Rules of the Superior Courts – special feature of this case that the notice party is a juvenile, in respect of whom delay may have a disproportionate effect by reason of his age and circumstances – appropriate to exercise discretion against the making of an order of certiorari, even if the ground advanced for its making had been established – application refused.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.