Attorney General v McTiernan
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1953 |
| Date | 01 January 1953 |
Customs offence - Smuggling - Prosecution therefor in District Court - Option of Revenue Commissioners to sue for penalty or for treble the value of the goods -Election of Revenue Commissioners to sue for penalty - Proof of such election - Amendment of charges sought to add a statement that the Revenue Commissioners had so elected - Election of Commissioners not proved in evidence - Written statement signed by a Revenue Commissioner that such election had been made produced in Court -Adjournment of case for legal argument - At resumed hearing fresh evidence of election of Commissioners offered - Refusal of District Justice to accept such fresh evidence - Whether such refusal correct - Excise Management Act, 1827 (7 8 Geo. 4, c. 53), s. 71 - Customs Consolidation Act, 1876 (39 40 Vict. c. 36), ss. 233, 260 - Inland Revenue Regulation Act, 1890 (53 54 Vict. c. 21), ss. 21, 24 - Finance Act, 1934 (No. 31 of 1934), s. 35 - Courts of Justice Act, 1928 (No. 15 of...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Bates v Brady
...1 IR 228 CAREY V HUSSEY & DPP 2000 2 ILRM 401 1999/4/672 DAWSON V HAMILL 1990 ILRM 257 DUFFIN V MARKHAM 1918 LT 148 AG V MCTIERNAN 1951 87 ILTR 162 CORBETT, AG V HALFORD 1976 IR 318 VERDON V DOWNES UNREP SUPREME 29.7.1976 1976/10/1383 DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACT 1966 FOOT & MOUTH DISEASE OR......
-
James O'Keeffe v Judge Joseph Mangan and Another
...whether that evidence may now be given was not discussed in argument. The decision of this Court inAttorney General v. McTiernan [1951] 87 ILTR 162 establishes that, in a prosecution in the District Court, the District Justice may allow further evidence of formal matters to be given after t......
-
O'Keeffe v District Judge Mangan & DPP
...Clarke [1966] 1 W.L.R. 788." 27 27. The Supreme Court had previously adopted a similar approach in Attorney General v. McTiernan (1951) 87 I.L.T.R. 162. In that case the District Judge had refused to allow the prosecution to supply documentary evidence following the close of its case to sho......
-
Attorney General (Corbett) v Halford
...discretion, whether to receive the evidence of the veterinary inspector when the case returns to him - see Attorney General v. McTiernan 87 I.L.T.R. 162. 12Judgment delivered 5th April 1976.KENNY KENNY J.: 13The defendant, Tony Halford, is an apprentice jockey whose home is in England. In 1......
