Rogers & Ors v Maloney & Ors, [2005] IEHC 433 (2005)

Docket Number:2004 638JR
Judge:O'Leary J. / O''Leary J.
 
FREE EXCERPT

THE HIGH COURT Record No. 638JR/2004BETWEENPAUL ROGERS, PATRICK ROGERS AND BARNROE LIMITEDApplicantsAND

GEORGE MALONEY, THE DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE ENFORCEMENT, THE COMMISSIONER OF AN GARDA SÍOCHÁNA, THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS AND DISTRICT JUDGE GEOFFREY BROWNERespondentsJUDGMENT delivered by The Honourable Mr Justice O'Leary on the 21st day of December 2005

Following the lodging of a grounding statement seeking judicial review and other relief supported by an affidavit of the first named applicant dated 23rd July, 2004, an order granting leave to apply for judicial review was made by Mr. Justice O'Neill in the following terms:

  1. An Order of Certiorari quashing the decision of the first and/or second named respondent to seek from the fifth named respondent through an Officer appointed by the second named respondent a search warrant dated the 10th of June 2004 to enter onto the premises at 4 Kiltalawn Cottages, Blessington, Dublin 24.

  2. An Order of Certiorari quashing the decision of the second named respondent to appoint the first named respondent as an officer of the Director of Corporate Enforcement within the meaning of s. 3 of the Company Law (Amendment) Act 2001 pursuant to a decision of the second named respondent dated the 26th of May, 2004.

  3. An Order of Certiorari quashing the decision of the fifth named respondent to sign and issue a search warrant authorising Garda Kevin Peake and/or such other persons as the said Garda Peake thought necessary to inter alia enter onto the premises named in the said warrant dated the 10th day of June, 2004, to execute the said warrant in the manner therein provided.

  4. An Order of Mandamus compelling the respondents to return forthwith to the applicants all items which have been unlawfully seized and retained by the servants or agents of the second and/or third named respondents

  5. An Order of Mandamus compelling the respondents to return forthwith to the applicants all items seized and retained by the servants or agents of the second and/or third named respondents, as set out in the inventory exhibited in the affidavit grounding the within application.

  6. An Order of Prohibition prohibiting the first, second, third and fourth named respondents from taking any further steps in the proceedings initiated by the second named respondent herein pursuant to the Company Law Enforcement Act 2001.

  7. An Order of Prohibition prohibiting the third and/or fourth named respondents from taking any further steps in proceedings against the first applicant entitled the Director of Public Prosecutions at the suit of Garda Kevin Daly and Paul Rogers Charge Sheet No 28413.

  8. An Order of Prohibition prohibiting the first, second, third and fourth named respondents from taking any steps to institute any proceedings against the applicants or any of them on foot of any evidence obtained on foot of the said warrant dated the 10th of June, 2004.

  9. An Order of Prohibition prohibiting the respondents or any of them from taking copies of any of the documentation or data seized by the servant or agents of the second or third named respondents on the 10th of June, 2004, whether held electronically or otherwise.

  10. A Declaration that the powers delegated to the first respondent pursuant to a decision of the second respondent dated the 26th of May, 2004, were limited to the powers specified in the schedule to the said decision.

  11. A Declaration that the fifth named respondent did not have any or any proper regard to proper consideration in signing and permitting the issue of the said Warrant based on the information dated the 10th of June, 2004.

  12. A Declaration that the search warrant dated the 10th day of June, 2004, was unlawfully obtained.

  13. A Declaration that the material information referred to in the warrant related solely to the items specified in the letter of demand dated the 27th of May, 2004 from the respondent.

  14. A Declaration that the said warrant on the face of it did not entitle the respondents or any of then to seize and remove from the custody of the applicants any documents or other items which were not material information and/or had not been specified in the letter of demand of the first named respondent dated the 27th of May, 2004.

  15. A Declaration that the servants or agents of the third named respondent were not authorised by the search warrant dated the 10th day of June, 2004, or by the Company Law Enforcement Act 2001, to remove any computer hardware, lap tops, computer software, CCTV, tapes, or electronic equipment from the premises named on the said warrant.

  16. A Declaration that the search warrant dated the 10th of June, 2004, did not entitle the servants or agents acting on behalf of the third named respondent to bring onto and use a camcorder to record the search carried out by the servants or agents of the second and/or third named respondents.

  17. A Declaration that the first named respondent acted unreasonably and contrary to the rules of natural and ordinary justice in failing to provide a reasonable time frame for...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL