Moran v Attorney General
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Court | High Court |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1977 |
| Docket Number | [1974 No. 2266 P] |
| Date | 01 January 1977 |
Taxi driver - Revocation of licence - Natural justice - Audi alteram partem - Revocation invalid - Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicles) Regulations, 1963 (S.I. No. 191), art. 24 - Road Traffic Act, 1961 (No. 24), ss. 5, 82 - Constitution of Ireland, 1937, Article 40.
The plaintiff was a taxi driver whose licence to drive a public service vehicle had been revoked by the third defendant in purported exercise of the powers conferred by article 24 of the Regulations of 1963. The plaintiff had appealed to the District Court against the revocation, as permitted by article 27 of the Regulations, but the appeal was dismissed after a full hearing. The plaintiff then issued a summons in the High Court and claimed a declaration that the revocation of his licence was invalid, and damages. The licence had been revoked without giving the plaintiff notice of the reasons for the revocation or an opportunity to controvert the matters which were alleged to justify the revocation. The plaintiff submitted that the revocation had been effected in breach of the principles of natural justice and in breach of his personal rights under the Constitution. Held by Doyle J., in making the declaration sought, 1, that the revocation of the licence was invalid because the plaintiff had not been given an opportunity to state his case against the making of the revocation. East Donegal Co-Operative v. The Attorney GeneralIR [1970] I.R. 317 and Inglev. O'BrienDLTR, 109 ILTR. 7 applied. 2. That the defect in the manner in which the power of revocation was exercised was not cured by the fact that, subsequently, the plaintiff had an opportunity of formulating and expressing his objections at the hearing of his appeal to the District Court. Leary v. National Union of Vehicle BuildersELR [1971] Ch. 34 considered.
Pre-trial written statement - Repudiation of statement -Witness cross-examined on statement -Statement taken to jury room inadvertently -Conviction - Retrial.
In the Central Criminal Court M. was indicted for murder before a jury. At the trial the judge gave the prosecution leave to treat a witness as hostile. The credibility of the witness was challenged by reference to two written statements that he had made. The witness admitted making these statements but claimed their contents were largely untrue and this was done for the purpose of incriminating M. and of diverting suspicion from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eircell v Leitrim County Council
...REPRESENTATIVE ASSOC 1997 2 IR 449 LEARY V NATIONAL UNION OF VEHICLE BUILDERS 1971 CH 34 INGLE V O'BRIEN 1975 109 ILTR 7 MORAN V AG 1976 IR 400 IRISH FAMILY PLANNING ASSOC & WILSON V RYAN 1979 IR 295 EAST DONEGAL CO-OP LIVESTOCK MART LTD V AG 1970 IR 317 GAMMELL V DUBLIN CO COUNCIL 19......
-
Shatter v Guerin
...under the Road Traffic (Public Services Vehicle) Regulations 1963 (Article 36: No. S.I. 191). Moran v. The Attorney General & Ors [1976] I.R. 400, applied the same reasoning in similar circumstances even if Mr. Moran had already exercised his right of appeal to the District Court against th......
-
McNamee v The Revenue Commissioners
...This absence of the asserted rights is claimed to constitute an unfair procedure, similar to that in Moran -v- Attorney General (1976) IR 400, where the deprivation of a taxi licence in unfair circumstances was not cured by the existence of an appeal to the District Court. This is thus sai......
-
B.L. v M.L.
...High Court, Finlay P., 31st July, 1981). N.A.D. v. J.D. [1985] I.L.R.M. 153. de Burca v. The Attorney General [1976] I.R. 38; (1976) 111 I.L.T.R. 137. Dent v. Dent (1865) 13 L.T. 253. Durant v. Durant (1827) 1 Hagg. Ecc. 733. J.F v. B.F (Unreported, High Court, Lardner J., 21st December, 19......