Dean v DPP
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | BY MR. JUSTICE HEDIGAN |
| Judgment Date | 22 February 2008 |
| Neutral Citation | [2008] IEHC 87 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 22 February 2008 |
[2008] IEHC 87
THE HIGH COURT
DUBLIN
BETWEEN
AND
WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT 1996 S32(1)
WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT 1996 S39
DELANY & MCGRATH PRACTICE & PROCEDURE IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 2ED 2005 698 PARA 27.46
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Leave
Non-disclosure of information - Duty of uberrimae fides - Ex parte nature of leave to apply system - Test for material non-disclosure - Whether information relevant - Waste Management Act 1996 (No 10), ss 32 and 39 - Prohibition refused (2005/478JR - Hedigan J - 22/2/2008) [2008] IEHC 87
Dean v DPP
Facts: The applicant sought by way of judicial review an order prohibiting the trial of him on serious charges brought under the Waste Managment Act 1996. Leave to seek judicial review was granted by O’Sullivan J. However, the applicant failed to bring to the attention of O’Sullivan J. the existence and contents of certain statements made by him to the Gardai in the course of their investigations.
Held by Hedigan J. in refusing the application: That had the existence and contents of those highly relevant statements been brought to the attention of O’Sullivan J., they might have led him to refuse the leave application.
Reporter: L’OS
BY MR. JUSTICE HEDIGAN ON FRIDAY 22ND FEBRUARY 2008
This is an application for an Order to prohibit the trial of the applicant on serious charges brought under the Waste Management Act 1996. These are: The disposal of waste in a manner that was likely to cause environmental pollution contrary to s. 32(1) of the Waste Management Act 1996 and the disposal of waste without a licence contrary to s. 39 of the Waste Management Act 1996.
Leave to seek Judicial Review was granted by O'Sullivan J. on 9th May 2005. It is agreed that statements made by the applicant to the Gardaí in the course of their investigations, and which admitted to dumping, but denied knowledge of the unlicensed nature of the site, were not brought to the notice of the Judge. These statements were, it seems to me, important parts of the factual matrix forming the basis of the criminal proceedings brought in this case.
Mr. McGrath in his book on Judicial Review at paragraph 27.46 sets out the fairly basic rules in relation to the requirements of full disclosure in an ex parte applica...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
H.F.A. (Pakistan) v International Protection Office
...has been outlined on numerous occasions in caselaw including, but by no means limited to, the decisions of Hedigan J. in Dean v. DPP [2008] IEHC 87 and of Kearns P. in McDonagh v. Watkin [2013] IEHC 582. I accept the assurances that solicitors and counsel for the applicant were not aware ......
-
Patrick Farrell v District Judge Bridget Reilly and Another
...IESC 2 RULES OF THE SUPERIOR COURTS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) 2011 SI 691/2011 RSC O.84 r20(3) DEAN v DPP UNREP HEDIGAN 22.2.2008 2008/11/2328 2008 IEHC 87 BUCKLEY v DISTRICT JUSTICE HAMILL & ORS UNREP O'KEEFFE 15.4.2011 2011/6/1438 2011 IEHC 261 MCDONAGH v DISTRICT JUDGE WATKIN & CMSR OF AN GARDA ......
-
Olafusi v Governor of Cloverhill Prison and DPP
...ACT 2004 S13 DPP v REDMOND 2006 3 IR 188 2006 2 ILRM 182 2006/21/4322 2006 IESC 25 DEAN v DPP UNREP HEDIGAN 22.2.2008 2008/11/2328 2008 IEHC 87 CONSTITUTION ART 40 REFUGEE ACT 1996 S9(8) NON-FATAL OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1997 S4(1) CONSTITUTION ART 38.1 IMMIGRATION LAW Evidence of ......
-
Mullan v DPP Ireland
...Review of Criminal Proceedings, Dunne, Round Hall 2011, para. 303). 40 The State respondents rely upon the decision of Dean v. DPP [2008] IEHC 87 in which Hedigan J. refused the reliefs sought on the basis of non-disclosure of relevant information to the court on the application for leave t......