dpp v murray

389 results for dpp v murray

  • vLex Rating
  • Cunningham v The President of the Circuit Court & anor, [2012] IESC 39 (2012)

    ... of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse where the issues in the case had become moot by reason of a change of policy of that commission subsequent to the decision of the High Court in Murray & anor v. Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse [2004] 2 I.R. 222, and while an appeal was pending to this court. 4.8 It must, of course, be acknowledged that some cases which have become moot may ...

  • Kearns -v- Director of Public Prosecutions, [2015] IESC 23 (2015)

    THE SUPREME COURT. JUDICIAL REVIEW[Appeal No. 489/2013]. Denham C.J. Murray J. Hardiman J. O’Donnell J. Dunne J. . BETWEEN . LUKE KEARNS APPLICANT/APPELLANTv. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONSRESPONDENT. Judgment of Ms. Justice Dunne delivered the 6th day of March, 2015 ...

  • McCaffery & anor -v- Central Bank of Ireland & anor, [2017] IEHC 546 (2017)

    ...It is one thing to say that a man must be allowed to defend himself but quite another to say that the State must pay the cost of his defence.”. 112. Similar views were expressed by Murray C.J. in his judgment in Lawlor v. Planning Tribunal [2010] 1 I.R. 170 (at 189-90):. “[54] What the case law does establish, in the context of the criminal law, is the right to be provided with ...

  • DPP -v- Desmond Donnelly, Gerard McGarrigle and James Murphy, [2012] IECCA 78 (2012)

    ...(This, it should be noted in the present context, is also the test applied in the context of drawing adverse inferences from the defendants’ silence. See: John Murray v. The United Kingdom, (Case 18731/91) (1996) E.H.R.R. 3 at para.47). This line of authority had caused considerable concern, particularly in the United Kingdom, and in the decision of R v. ...

  • DPP -v- Thomas Hughes, [2012] IECCA 69 (2012)

    ...At the time of that decision, A. had no appeal extant. The applicant here, equally, has no appeal extant and will not have such an appeal unless he is successful in this application. In A., Murray C.J. stated “the general principle” at p.143 of his judgment:. “In a criminal prosecution where the State relies in good faith on a statute in force at the time and the accused does not seek to ...

  • Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform v Bailey, [2012] IESC 16 (2012)

    THE SUPREME COURT. [Appeal No: 174/11] . Denham C.J. Murray J. Hardiman J. Fennelly J. O’Donnell J. Between/. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law ReformApplicant/Respondent. and. Ian BaileyRespondent/Appellant . Judgment delivered on the 1st day of ...

  • Ellis -v- The Minister for Justice and Equality & ors, [2016] IEHC 234 (2016)

    ...2 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1990. This challenge was rejected by the Supreme Court and the entitlement of the Oireachtas to fix a mandatory sentence for murder was upheld. It was stated by Murray C.J. at para 49:-. "The court is satisfied, as O Dálaigh C.J. explained in [Deaton v. Attorney General] that the Oireachtas in the exercise of its legislative powers may choose in particular cases ...

  • DPP -v- Liam Bolger, [2013] IECCA 6 (2013)

    ...19. In A. v. Governor of Arbour Hill Prison [2006] IESC 45, [2006] 2 I.L.R.M. 481, [2006] 4 I.R. 88 at 143, paragraph 125, a general principle was stated by Murray C.J. (as he was then):-. “In a criminal prosecution where the State relies in good faith on a statute in force at the time and the accused does not seek to impugn the bringing or conduct of the ...

  • DPP -v- McCrea, [2010] IESC 60 (2010)

    THE SUPREME COURT. Murray C.J. 82/09. Hardiman J. Fennelly J. Macken J. Finnegan J. IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 2 OF THE SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT, 1857, AS EXTENDED BY SECTION 51 OF THE COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACT, ...

  • Cosgrave v DPP & anor, [2012] IESC 24 (2012)

    THE SUPREME COURT. Unapproved. Denham C.J. 322/2011. Murray J. Hardiman J. Fennelly J. O’Donnell J. Between:. LIAM COSGRAVE. Applicant/Appellant. and. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS. IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. Respondents. JUDGMENT of Mr. ...

  • Clarke -v- The Governor of Mountjoy Prison, [2016] IEHC 278 (2016)

    ...A principle of absolute retroactivity in respect of such decisions or cases was firmly rejected. Murray C.J summarised the general principle applicable as follows:. “125. In a criminal prosecution where the State relies in good faith on a statute in force at the time and the accused does not seek to ...

  • DPP -v- Vitoldas Jagutis, [2013] IECCA 4 (2013)

    ...and Hardiman J. although all members of the court agreed on the ultimate outcome of the case. In that context it is appropriate to note that the other members of the Court (Murray C.J., Denham and Geoghegan JJ.) expressly agreed with the judgment of Fennelly J. It follows that the reasoning of the Court is to be found in the judgment of Fennelly J. 3.3 It is, as always, ...

  • Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Jervis & Doyle, [2014] IECCA 14 (2014)

    ...The offender was a South African national who had been persuaded to fly to Ireland with a large quantity of cannabis. Murray J, delivering the judgment of the Court, said that two of the “exceptional and specific circumstances” mentioned in the section had been taken into account by the trial judge “namely, the ...

  • Director of Public Prosecutions -v- M, [2018] IESC 21 (2018)

    ...That was confirmed in Murray v. United Kingdom (1996) 22 EHRR 29, although the Court made it clear that the right to silence was not absolute and that it could in some circumstances be limited by appropriate inference-drawing ...

  • D.P.P.-v- Warren Dumbrell & Jeffrey Dumbrell, [2010] IECCA 84 (2010)

    UNAPPROVED. COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL187/08. 199/08. Murray C.J. . McKechnie J. Dunne J. BETWEEN. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS. RESPONDENT-v-. JEFFREY DUMBRELL AND WARREN DUMBRELL. APPLICANTSJUDGMENT of the Court delivered by Murray C.J. on the 28th ...

  • DPP -v- Jason Kavanagh, Mark Farrelly & Christopher Corcoran, [2012] IECCA 65 (2012)

    ...DPP & Ors [2012] IESC 11 in their appeal. 54. In A v. Governor of Arbour Hill Prison [2006] IESC 45, [2006] 4 I.R. 88 at 143, a general principle was described by Murray C.J. as follows:-. “In a criminal prosecution where the State relies in good faith on a statute in force at the time and the accused does not seek to impugn the bringing or conduct of the ...

  • D.P.P.-v- Ingram McGinty, [2006] IECCA 37 (2006)

    THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL. Murray C.J. 182 CJA/04 . O'Sullivan J. O'Leary J. IN THE MATTER OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT, 1993, . SECTION 2. BETWEENTHE PEOPLE AT THE SUIT OF . THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONSAPPELLANT. -v-. INGRAM ...

  • Alen-Buckley & anor -v- An Bord Pleanála & anor, [2017] IEHC 541 (2017)

    ...In discussing pleadings in judicial review Murray CJ. stated:. “A party seeking judicial review is required to apply to the High Court for leave to bring these proceedings and can only be granted such leave on specified grounds when certain ...

  • Willis & ors -v- Governor of Wheatfield Prison & ors, [2015] IEHC 251 (2015)

    ...in O’Neill, since, to recall again the words of Murray C.J. in BUPA Ireland, one cannot realistically expect that the long title will contain the type of specific detail which is invariably only to be found in the substantive provisions of an Act itself. ...

  • DPP -v- T O'Regan, [2007] IESC 38 (2007)

    JUDGMENT BY: Kearns J. THE SUPREME COURT. Murray, C. J. Geoghegan J. Fennelly J. Kearns J. Macken J.[43/07]THE SUPREME COURT IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL UNDER S. 29 OF THE COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT, 1924. THE PEOPLE AT THE SUIT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC ...

  • J.(S).T. -v- President of the Circuit Court & anor, [2014] IEHC 5 (2014)

    ...In his affidavit, the State Solicitor for Limerick, Mr. Michael Murray, sets out the progress of both Bill numbers at Limerick Circuit Court. With respect to Bill No. 93/2010, the prosecution could not proceed because of a legal challenge to the status of the offence of ...

  • Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Tobin, [2012] IESC 37 (2012)

    THE SUPREME COURT[S.C. No.98 of 2011]. Denham, C.J. Murray, J. Hardiman, J. Fennelly, J. O’Donnell, J. Between:. Minister for Justice and EqualityApplicant/Respondent. AND. Ciarán TobinRespondent/Appellant. JUDGMENT delivered the 19th day of June 2012 by ...

  • Devoy -v- Governor of Portlaoise Prison & Ors, [2009] IEHC 288 (2009)

    ...He relies upon the Supreme Court decision in Murray v. Ireland [1991] ILRM 465 and also on Holland v. The Governor of Portlaoise Prison [2004] 2 I.R.573 in support of this. The correctness of this proposition is beyond all doubt at this stage. ...

  • Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Gleeson, [2018] IESC 53 (2018)

    ...On this, see generally Attorney-General v Murray [1926] IR 266, R v Lawrence [1982] AC 510 per Lord Hailsham LC, Coonan and Foley - The Judge’s Charge in Criminal Trials (Dublin, 2008) chapter 2, and Archbold - Criminal Pleading, Evidence and ...

  • Lobe & ors -v- Minister for Justice, Equality & Law Reform, Osayande & anor -v- Minister for Justice, Equality & Law Reform and ors, [2003] IESC 3 (2003)

    JUDGMENT BY: McGuinness J. THE SUPREME COURT. Keane C.J. Denham J. Murray J. McGuinness J. Hardiman J. Geoghegan J. Fennelly J. 109/02 & 108/02. BETWEEN. DAVID LOBE, JANA LOVEOVA, ALADAR LOBE (A MINOR SUING BY HIS FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, DAVID LOBE), LUKAS LOBE (A MINOR ...