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.
Complaints made against District Court were ‘premature, moot or unnecessary’
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Supreme Court dismisses appeal from High Court, and affirms refusal to grant judicial review of certain directions of the District Court concerning a trial on various road traffic charges, on the grounds that: (a) the applicant had had the benefit of a four-hour preliminary hearing in the District Court; (b) the applicant had succeeded in a number of the applications he made; (c) although the District Court refused to permit a stenographer, it was common cause that an accused person was allowed to have a stenographer at hearing; and (d) the other claims were either 'premature, moot or unnecessary'.
MacMenamin J (nem diss): Judicial review - summonses for road traffic offences - driving without insurance - leaving scene of an accident - hearing date fixed by District Court - invitation to lodge submissions on preliminary issues - application for adjournment - claim that accused had not had time to prepare for the hearing - questions from judge concerning McKenzie friend - four-hour hearing on preliminary issues.
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.
