Dental Board v O'Callaghan
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 31 January 1969 |
| Docket Number | [1968. No. 321 SS.] |
| Date | 31 January 1969 |
| Court | High Court |
(H.C.)
Dental Board
and
O'Callaghan
Agent provocateur -Corroboration - Whether agent provocateur must be treated as an accomplice - Dentists Act, 1928 (No. 25 of 1928), ss. 45, 47.
The complainant Board was authorised by s. 47 of the Dentists Act, 1928, to prosecute persons for offences under that Act. At the hearing in the District Court of a complaint that the defendant had practised dentistry contrary to the provisions of s. 45 of the Act of 1928, the only evidence in support of the charge was given by one of the Board's inspectors who, being authorised by the Board to do so, had invited the services of the defendant...
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
12 cases
-
McKenna v Deery
...& LOTTERIES ACT 1956 S4(1)(c) MURPHY V GREENE 1991 ILRM 404 O'DOWD V NORTH WESTERN HEALTH BOARD 1983 ILRM 186 DENTAL BOARD V O'CALLAGHAN 1969 IR 181 MCHALE V DEVALLY & DUBLIN CO COUNCIL UNREP LARDNER 20.5.1993 EX-TEMPORE TOTE INVESTORS V SMOKER 1967 3 AER 242 R V ANDERSON 1985 2 AER 961 ......
- DPP v Gilligan (No 2)
-
DPP v Brian Meehan
...AC 1001 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1965 (UK) CIVIL EVIDENCE ACT 1965 (UK) POLICE & CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1984 (UK) DENTAL BOARD v O'CALLAGHAN 1969 IR 181 DPP v HESTER 1973 AC 296 CRIMINAL JUSTICE (EVIDENCE) ACT 1924 R v SHEEHAN 1826 JEBB CC 54 MCGRATH EVIDENCE 2005 141 DAVIES v DPP 1954 1 AER 50......
-
DPP v O'Reilly
...time again that the warning need not be given in any particular form of words, the decision of Butler J. in Dental Board v. O'Callaghan [1969] I.R. 181 is nevertheless useful in setting out its essential constituents. In that case he said: “The rule is that the tribunal of fact, be it Distr......
Get Started for Free