cc v ireland

180 results for cc v ireland

  • vLex Rating
  • P. -v- D. P. P. & Ors, [2008] IEHC 426 (2008)

    THE HIGH COURT2006 4652 P. BETWEEN. J.P.PLAINTIFFAND. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERALDEFENDANTS. Judgment of Mr Justice Roderick Murphy delivered on the 19th day of December, 2008. 1. Background to the proceedings . The plaintiff pleaded guilty to two charges ...

  • P. -v- D. P. P. & Ors, [2008] IEHC 426 (2008)

    THE HIGH COURT2006 4652 P. BETWEEN. J.P.PLAINTIFFAND. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERALDEFENDANTS. Judgment of Mr Justice Roderick Murphy delivered on the 19th day of December, 2008. 1. Background to the proceedings . The plaintiff pleaded guilty to two charges ...

  • D.C. -v- D.R., [2015] IEHC 309 (2015)

    ...At that stage the deceased was living with her mother in her former family home in a town in the south of Ireland. The evidence of the plaintiff is that he and the deceased became intimate in 1995 and the relationship became a committed one when the mother of the deceased died in 1996. His evidence was that ...

  • G. E. -v- DPP, [2008] IESC 61 (2008)

    ...1(1) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1935 in the case of CC v. Ireland, the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions [2006] 4 I.R. 1. All of these adjournments were by consent and the applicant was on bail at all material times. On 23rd May, 2006 this ...

  • G. E. -v- DPP, [2008] IESC 61 (2008)

    ...1(1) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1935 in the case of CC v. Ireland, the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions [2006] 4 I.R. 1. All of these adjournments were by consent and the applicant was on bail at all material times. On 23rd May, 2006 this ...

  • McNulty -v- DPP, [2009] IESC 12 (2009)

    ...The respondent's primary ground of opposition is therefore moot.". The appellant goes on to refer to the well known case of C.C. v. Ireland [2006] 4 IR 1. He places his reliance on the following passage from the judgment of Geoghegan J.:"Having regard, however, to the events which have occurred since leave was granted to institute the ...

  • McNulty -v- DPP, [2009] IESC 12 (2009)

    ...The respondent's primary ground of opposition is therefore moot.". The appellant goes on to refer to the well known case of C.C. v. Ireland [2006] 4 IR 1. He places his reliance on the following passage from the judgment of Geoghegan J.:"Having regard, however, to the events which have occurred since leave was granted to institute the ...

  • Maloney -v- Ireland & Ors, [2009] IEHC 291 (2009)
  • Maloney -v- Ireland & Ors, [2009] IEHC 291 (2009)
  • D. [a minor] -v- Ireland & Ors, [2009] IEHC 206 (2009)
  • D. [a minor] -v- Ireland & Ors, [2009] IEHC 206 (2009)
  • D. [a minor] -v- Ireland & Ors, [2009] IEHC 206 (2009)
  • Mc Donagh & Ors -v- Kilkenny County Council & Ors, 2007 IEHC 350 (2007)

    ...KILKENNY COUNTY COUNCIL, THE COMMISSIONER OF AN GARDA SÍOCHÁNA, THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERALRESPONDENTSJUDGMENT of Mr. Justice O'Neill delivered the 23rd day of October, 2007 . The applicants are members of the travelling community and consist of one extended ...

  • Mc Donagh & Ors -v- Kilkenny County Council & Ors, 2007 IEHC 350 (2007)

    ...KILKENNY COUNTY COUNCIL, THE COMMISSIONER OF AN GARDA SÍOCHÁNA, THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERALRESPONDENTSJUDGMENT of Mr. Justice O'Neill delivered the 23rd day of October, 2007 . The applicants are members of the travelling community and consist of one extended ...

  • Davitt v Judge Deery & Anor, [2006] IEHC 84 (2006)

    ...Counsel for the applicant referred to Director of Public Prosecutions v. Moorehouse, Unreported, Supreme Court, 28th July, 2005 and to C.C. v. Ireland (Unreported, Supreme Court, 12th July, 2005). The applicant also referred to C.C. v. Ireland, (Unreported, Supreme Court, 12th July, 2005), regarding the defence of bona fide mistake as to age, where ...

  • Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government -v- Leneghan & Anor, [2009] IEHC 226 (2009)

    ...It seems clear that this tri-partite approach has now received endorsement from the Supreme Court in the decision of C.C. v. Ireland [2006] 4 I.R. 1. The Court is therefore obliged to entertain a number of different considerations in assessing whether the presumption of a regular mens rea element has been rebutted and to what ...

  • Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government -v- Leneghan & Anor, [2009] IEHC 226 (2009)

    ...It seems clear that this tri-partite approach has now received endorsement from the Supreme Court in the decision of C.C. v. Ireland [2006] 4 I.R. 1. The Court is therefore obliged to entertain a number of different considerations in assessing whether the presumption of a regular mens rea element has been rebutted and to what ...

  • Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government -v- Leneghan & Anor, [2009] IEHC 226 (2009)

    ...It seems clear that this tri-partite approach has now received endorsement from the Supreme Court in the decision of C.C. v. Ireland [2006] 4 I.R. 1. The Court is therefore obliged to entertain a number of different considerations in assessing whether the presumption of a regular mens rea element has been rebutted and to what ...

  • Kennedy -v- D.P.P. & Anor, [2007] IEHC 3 (2007)

    ...4 of the latter Act. 6. The applicant seeks a declaration that s. 4 of the Act of 2001 is invalid, having regard to the provisions of the Constitution of Ireland. He also seeks a declaration that the aforesaid section is incompatible with the State's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, for reasons discussed below. However the issues ...

  • A. -v- The Governor of Arbour Hill Prison, [2006] IESC 45 (2006)

    THE SUPREME COURT. Murray C.J. 205/06. Denham J. McGuinness J. Hardiman J. Geoghegan J. IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 40, SECTION 4, SUBSECTION 2. OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IRELAND, 1937. BETWEENA.APPLICANT-v-. THE GOVERNOR OF ARBOUR HILL PRISONRESPONDENT. JUDGMENT delivered the 10th day of July 2006, by Murray C.J. "… [T]he fact that a provision was held to be no longer in ...

  • J. Q. -V- Presiding Judge of Dublin Circuit Court & Ors, [2007] IEHC 155 (2007)

    ...These two grounds are as follows:-"1. The relief at D(1) - (5) is sought on the ground that:. (a) On 23rd May, 2006 in proceedings entitled C.C. v. The Director of Public Prosecutions Ireland and the Attorney General (Record No. 357/04, by order of the Supreme Court, s. 1(1) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1935 was declared inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution of ...

  • Brady v The Environmental Protection Agency, [2007] IEHC 58 (2007)

    ...In Hanrahan Farms Ltd v. The Environmental Protection Agency, Ireland and The Attorney General, (Unreported, High Court, Smyth J., 21 July, 2005) an issue arose as to whether particular conditions in a licence granted by the respondent were within the powers conferred ...

  • DPP -v- Power, [2007] IESC 31 (2007)

    ...That passage from Sweet and Parsley was again approved by this court in C.C. v Ireland, the Attorney General and Others [2005] I.E.S.C. 48: where Denham J. said -. "I am satisfied that this statement reflects the common law in this jurisdiction also and I would adopt and apply this ...

  • A. v The Governor of Arbour Hill Prison, [2006] IEHC 169 (2006)

    ...1(1) of the Act of 1935 is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution in C.C. v. Ireland, The Attorney General and The Director of Public Prosecutions. It is of significance that in that case the Supreme Court declared s. 1(1) to be inconsistent with the Constitution in toto, rejecting ...

  • Cromane Foods Limited & anor -v- Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries & Food & ors, [2016] IESC 6 (2016)

    ...Dunne J. Charleton J. Between/. Cromane Seafoods Limited and O’Sullivan McCarthy Mussel Development LimitedPlaintiffs/Respondentsand. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Ireland and the Attorney General. Defendants/Appellants. Judgment of Mr. Justice Clarke delivered the 22nd February, 2016. 1. Introduction. 1.1 The circumstances in which the State may be liable for mistakes ...