Murray -v- Her Honour Judge Jacqueline Linnane & anor, [2005] IESC 25 (2005)

Docket Number:280/02
Party Name:Murray, Her Honour Judge Jacqueline Linnane & anor
Judge:McCracken J.



Murray CJ

Hardiman J

McCracken J


Donall Murray



Her Honour Judge Jacqueline Linnane



The Director of Public Prosecutions

Notice Party

Judgment of Mr Justice McCracken delivered the 27th April day of 2004


By order of Murphy J made on 29th April 2002 the Applicant was granted leave to apply by way of judicial review for an order of certiorari setting aside the orders of the Respondent made on 19th April 2002 dismissing two appeals by the Applicant against convictions by District Judge Kirby. Both convictions related to charges of driving a motor vehicle without insurance contrary to s.56 (3) of the Road Traffic Act 1961. These offences were alleged to have taken place on 11th July 2000 and 31st October 2000. The Applicant had also sought leave to apply by way of judicial review for other reliefs, which leave was refused by Murphy J.

The orders complained of were made by the Respondent after a hearing lasting three days. In addition to the oral hearing, the Applicant had submitted extensive written legal submissions to the Respondent.

There were a number of factual issues in dispute at the hearing before the Respondent. The Applicant also, as was his right, sought to impugn the integrity and motives of certain members of the gardaí, and to establish a pattern of harassment of the Applicant by members of the gardaí. These matters were gone into at length during the three day hearing. Ultimately the Respondent held the prosecution case to be proved and affirmed the convictions in the District Court and imposed penalties on the Applicant which in fact were less severe than those imposed in the District Court.

In the State (Abenglen) v. Dublin Corporation [1984] IR 381 O'Higgins CJ considered the scope of an order of certiorari and said:-

Its purpose is to supervise the exercise of jurisdiction by such bodies or tribunals and to control any usurpation or action in excess of jurisdiction. It is not available to correct errors or to review decisions or to make the High Court a court of appeal from the decisions complained of.

This principle must be borne in mind in considering the grounds put forward by the Applicant in the present case.

One of the issues before the Respondent concerned the actions of the gardaí in arresting the Applicant, allegedly in the driveway of his home. A complaint is made that the Respondent erred in...

To continue reading