State (O'Rourke) v Kelly
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1983 |
| Docket Number | [S.C. No. 58 of 1979] |
| Date | 01 January 1983 |
Supreme Court
Constitution - Statute - Validity - Administration of justice - Judicial function - Interference - Mandatory requirement that specified order be made in particular circumstances - Enactment valid - Housing Act, 1966 (No. 21), s. 62 - Constitution of Ireland, 1937, Articles 6, 34.
Section 62, sub-s. 1, of the Housing Act, 1966, authorises a housing authority to apply, in certain circumstances, to the District Court for a warrant authorising possession to be taken by the authority of a dwelling. Sub-section 3 of s. 62 directs that, upon the hearing of such application which has been "duly made," the District Justice shall issue the warrant if he is satisfied that the demand for possession mentioned in sub-s. 1 "has been duly made."
The first respondent, by a warrant issued by him pursuant to sub-s. 3 of s. 62, ordered the recovery by the Corporation of Dublin of possession of a dwelling occupied by the prosecutor. The prosecutor obtained in the High Court a conditional order of certiorari quashing the order of the first respondent, unless cause were shown to the contrary, on the ground that the order had been made contrary to the principles of natural justice. The High Court allowed the cause shown by the first respondent and discharged the conditional order. At the hearing of his appeal to the Supreme Court from the decision of the High Court, the prosecutor submitted that the provisions of sub-s. 3 of s. 62 were invalid, having regard to the provisions of the Constitution, because they constituted an interference with the function of the District Court in the administration of justice by depriving the District Justice of any real discretion in determining an application under sub-s. 1 of the said section.
Held by the Supreme Court, in disallowing the appeal, 1, that the mandatory issue by a District Justice of a warrant pursuant to s. 62, sub-s. 3, of the Act of 1966 is dependent upon proof of the circumstances specified in sub-s. 1 of that section.
2. That, accordingly, the Court rejected the prosecutor's submission that the section was invalid.
Cases mentioned in this report:—
1 Corporation of Dublin v. McDonnell (High Court: 3rd July, 1968).
2 The State (Healy) v. Donoghue [1976] I.R. 325.
3 The State (Crothers) v. Kelly (High Court: 2nd October, 1978).
4 East Donegal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State (McEldowney) v Kelleher
...exclusive competence of the courts established under the Constitution, be determined by the legislature. The State (O'Rourke)v. KellyIR [1983] I.R. 58 distinguished. 3. That, accordingly, the provisions of sub-s. 4 of s. 13 of the Act of 1962 were invalid having regard to the provisions of ......
-
Murphy v District Justice Wallace
...(NO 2) ACT 1986 S2(3) COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT 1936 S76 INLAND REVENUE REGULATION ACT 1890 S21 FINANCE ACT 1987 S53 O'ROURKE, STATE V KELLY 1983 IR 58 DEATON V REVENUE COMMISSIONERS 1963 IR 170 RSC O.84 r26(4) Synopsis: DELAY Judicial review Leave - Application - Justification - Distress war......
-
Murphy v GM
...THE PROTECTION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS & FREEDOMS ART 6(2) CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1994 PHILLIPS V UK UNREP 5/7/2001 O'ROURKE, STATE V KELLY 1983 IR 58 CONSTITUTION ART 29 PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT 1996 S2(5)(C) CONSTITUTION ART 29.6 O LAIGHLEIS 1960 IR 93 BLACKSTONE COMMENTARIES VOL 4 5 PROCEEDS ......
- JRI Resources Sdn Bhd v Kuwait Finance House (M) Bhd (President of Association of Islamic Banking Institutions Malaysia and Another, interveners)
-
I Can't Get No Satisfaction: An Analysis of the Influence of the European Convention on Human Rights on the Repossession of Public Housing in Ireland
...the failure of constitutional challenges to s.62 be analysed. It must be 4 Housing Act, 1966, s.62(3). 5 See The State (O'Rourke) v Kelly [1983] IR 58; Dublin Corporation v Hamilton [1999] 2 IR 486 and Byrne v Scally [2000] JEHC 72. 6 The State (Kathleen Litzouw) v Dublin Corporation [1981]......
-
The District Court, the European Convention on Human Rights Act, 2003 'Cause And Effect
...for possession. The Court took the view that this _____________________________________________________ 3The State (O’Rourke) v. Kelly [1983] I.R. 58. 2010] ECHR Act, 2003: Cause and Effect 99 was no different to many other statutory provisions which, upon proof of certain matters, makes it......