Cashman v District Justice Clifford

JurisdictionIreland
CourtHigh Court
JudgeMr.Justice Barron
Judgment Date01 January 1990
Neutral Citation1989 WJSC-HC 1048
Date01 January 1990
Docket Number[1988] No. 351 J.R.]
CASHMAN v. CLIFFORD & AG
WILLIAM CASHMAN
.v.
JOHN CLIFFORD AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

1989 WJSC-HC 1048

THE HIGH COURT

Synopsis:

BETTING

Bookmaker

Premises - Registration - Application - Refusal - Appeal - Opposition - Statute restricting the persons who are entitled to be heard by the court and to adduce evidence at the hearing of the appeal - Administration of justice - Interference - Enactment invalid - Severance of enactment - Held that the words "and no other person" in s. 13, sub-s. 5(a), of the Act of 1931 purported to effect an impermissible invasion of the judicial domain contrary to Article 34, s. 1, of the Constitution and rendered the provisions of sub-s. 5(a) invalid: ~The State (C.) v. Minister for Justice~ [1967] I.R. 106, 102 I.L.T.R. 177 and ~The State (McEldowney) v. Kelleher~ [1983] I.R. 289, [1985] ILRM 10 considered - Held that those words could be severed from the rest of paragraph (a) without affecting the remaining intention of the Oireachtas and that the said paragraph applied with the ommission of those words - Betting Act, 1931, s. 13 - Constitution of Ireland, 1937, Article 34 - (1988/351 JR - Barron J. - 16/3/89) [1990] ILRM 200 [1989] IR 121

|Cashman v. Clifford|

CONSTITUTION

Courts

Administration of justice - Judicial function - Interference - Enactment - Invalidity - Severance of invalid portion - Restriction on persons entitled to appear and adduce evidence at hearing of appeal to the District Court - ~See~ Betting, bookmaker - (1988/351 JR - Barron J. - 18/3/89) - [1990] ILRM 200 [1989] IR 121

|Cashman v. Clifford|

CONSTITUTION

Statute

Validity - Administration of justice - Judicial domain - Interference - Licence application - Refusal - Appeal to District Court - Enactment purporting to restrict persons entitled to appear and adduce evidence at hearing of appeal - Severance of enactment - ~See~ Betting, bookmaker - (1988/351 JR - Barron J. - 16/3/89) - [1990] ILRM 200 [1989] IR 121

|Cashman v. Clifford|

Citations:

BETTING ACT 1931 S11(1)(k)

BETTING ACT 1931 S13

MCELDOWNEY V KELLEHER 1983 IR 289

STREET AND HOUSE TO HOUSE COLLECTIONS ACT 1962 S13(4)

C, STATE V MIN FOR JUSTICE 1967 IR 106

1

Judgement of Mr.Justice Barrondelivered the 16thday of March 1989

2

The Betting Act 1931provides, inter alia, for a register of bookmaking offices. Any licensed bookmaker or holder of a certificate of personal fitness under the Act wishing to register his premises in such register must, having published notice of his intention to apply for such certificate in two newspapers circulating in the district in which the premises are situate, apply to the Garda Superintendent for such district for a certificate that such premises are suitable for registration in the register. The Notice Party in the instant proceedings applied as a licensed bookmaker for such a certificate in respect of premises at Mahon Shopping Centre, Cork. The Applicant objected to the grant of the certificate upon the ground that there were "already an excessive number of registered premises in the district," being a ground of objection permitted by section 11 (1) (k) of the Act. The Notice party appealed this refusal to the District Court.in accordance with the provisions of Section 13 of the Act.

3

So far as is material to the present proceedings, the procedure for appeal laid down by the section is as follows:

4

If required, the Superintendent must give the applicant for the certificate a statement in writing in the prescribed form of the grounds on which he refused to give the certificate: subsection (1).

5

Notice of the appeal must be given to the superintendent and to the Revenue Commisioners: subsection (3).

6

On the hearing of the appeal the District Court may either confirm or disallow the refusal of the certificate: subsection (4).

7

The Superintendent of the Garda Siochana and the Revenue Commissioners and no other person shall be entitled to be heard and to adduce evidence in opposition to the appeal: subsection (5) (a).

"Any ground of refusal mentioned in the written statement of grounds of refusal and no otherground may be advanced in opposition to the appeal:" subsection (5) (c).

8

No appeal lies to the Circuit Court: subsection (5) (e).

9

As can be seen the Applicant by virtue of subsection (5) (a) is neither entitled to be heard nor to adduce evidence in opposition to the appeal. He has applied to the District Justice before the Notice Party's appeal will be heard for liberty to appear and to adduce evidence, but has been refused. He has sought...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • O'Brien v Clerk of Dáil Éireann
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 31 March 2017
    ...... Ms. Justice Ni Raifeartaigh refused to grant any relief to the plaintiff. The Court ..., was unconstitutional in circumstances where it mandated that a District Judge should disallow an appeal from a permit refusal if a member of An ...In Cashman v District Justice Clifford & Anor. [1989] 1 I.R. 121 , the High Court ......
  • Denis O'Brien v Dail Eirann and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • Invalid date
  • Murphy v GM PB PC Ltd and GH
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 4 June 1999
    ...MIN FOR JUSTICE 1967 IR 106 BUCKLEY V AG 1950 IR 67 MAHER V AG 1973 IR 140 MCELDOWNEY, STATE V KELLEHER 1983 IR 289 CASHMAN V CLIFFORD 1989 IR 121 STRAN GREEK REFINERIES V GREECE 1994 19 EHRR 293 PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT 1996 S2(5) PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT 1996 S8 CONSTITUTION ART 34.1 AG FO......
  • Bedford Bourough Council v M
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 29 September 2017
    ...appears to run contrary to Irish (and possibly Charter) conceptions of the requirements of the separation of powers: Cashman v. Clifford [1989] I.R. 121 per Barron J. at 124. 48 Article 23 provides that inter alia: 'A judgment relating to parental responsibility shall not be recognised: (a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Impartiality in Judicial Appointments: an Absent Concept?
    • Ireland
    • Trinity College Law Review Nbr. X-2007, January 2007
    • 1 January 2007
    ...It has been argued that an increase could be, at least, as corrupting as a decrease. See McCarthy, note 3. 23 See Cashman s, Clifford [1990] ILRM 200 and McMenamin %, Ireland [1996] 3 IR 100. 24 See Gerard Hogan and Gerry Whyte eds. Kelly: The Irish Constitution (4 h ed. Butterworths 2004),......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT