State (Attorney-General) v Judge Binchy
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1966 |
| Date | 01 January 1966 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
(S.C.)
State (Attorney-General)
and
Judge Binchy
Order returning accused not proved - Trial judge directing jury to return verdict of "not guilty" - Verdict of "not guilty" simpliciter written on issue paper -Certiorari - Mandamus - Whether Court can quash a verdict of "not guilty".
W. was indicted before the Circuit Criminal Court on a charge of larceny and receiving. The prosecution case closed without the order returning the accused for trial in the Circuit Criminal Court having been proved by...
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
-
Gerald Burns v Judge William Early and the Special Criminal Court and DPP (notice party)
...1991 2 IR 421 CO COUNCIL OF KILDARE V CMMSR OF VALUATION & GREAT SOUTHERN & WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY 1901 2 IR 215 AG, STATE V JUDGE BINCHY 1964 IR 395 AG, PEOPLE V HANNIGAN 1958 IR 378 AG, PEOPLE V WALSH 1 FREWEN 363 DE BURCA V AG 1976 IR 38 JURIES ACT 1927 CONSTITUTION ART 50 CORRIGAN V......
-
People v O'Shea
...2 I.R. 299; The King (McGrath) v. Chairman and Justices of Clare 1905 2 I.R. 510) and a decision of this Court, The State (A.G.) v. Binchy 1964I.R.395, in which the earlier authorities were reviewed. While these authorities do reflect the settled policies and principles of the common law, ......
-
Cleary v DPP
...P100-101 HAYNES v DAVIS 1915 1 KB 332 GREAT SOUTHERN & WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY v GOODING 1908 2 IR 429 STATE (AG) v JUDGE BINCHY 1964 IR 395 CONNELLY v DPP 1964 AC 1254 CRIMINAL LAW Trial Prohibition - Judicial review - Autrefois acquit - Summary trial - Trial on indictment - Abuse of proc......
-
The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v J.C.
...acuit rule which continued to be firmly applied in the post-Constitution courts”. He instanced several cases. One of these is The State (Attorney General) v. Binchy [1964] I.R. 395. This was a case where a verdict of not guilty had been directed by a trial judge. In the unanimous view of t......
Get Started for Free