State (Shanahan) v Attorney-General and Others
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Judgment Date | 02 June 1964 |
| Date | 02 June 1964 |
Attorney-General -Order returning for trial - Previous refusal of informations by District Justice - Whether any interference by Attorney-General with operation of Courts - Whether Justice exercising judicial function on preliminary investigation of offence -Constitution of Ireland, 1937, Arts. 34, 1; 50, 1 -Courts of Justice Act, 1936, s. 62.
Informations against the prosecutrix in respect of certain offences having been refused, the Attorney-General, under the provisions of s. 62 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1936, directed that the prosecutrix be sent forward for trial in the Circuit Court. The prosecutrix obtained in the High Court a conditional order of certiorari, directed to the Attorney-General, to bring before the Court the said direction for the purpose of having it quashed. The prosecutrix obtained also a conditional order of prohibition directed to the judge appointed for the hearing of criminal cases at the sittings of the Court to which the prosecutrix had been returned for trial, prohibiting him from proceeding with her trial. On the hearing of the motion to make absolute the said conditional orders of certiorari and prohibition, notwithstanding cause shown, it was held by Davitt P., 1, that the cause shown against the conditional order of prohibition be disallowed and that the conditional order be made absolute; 2, that certiorari did not lie and that the conditional order of certiorari, as amended, do stand discharged; 3, that in receiving or refusing informations on the preliminary investigation of an indictable offence the District Court is exercising the judicial power of the State and administering justice within the meaning of Art. 34 of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Costello v DPP
...shall be deemed to have been done or taken by or on behalf of the Director." 25In the State (Shanahan) .v. The Attorney General 1964 I.R. 239the question of whether or not section 62 of the Courts of Justice Act 1936 is inconsistent with the Constitution was considered by the Supreme Court......
-
Sloan v The Special Criminal Court
...had no constitutional right to a preliminary examination before the District Court. The State (Shanahan) v. The Attorney GeneralIR[1964] I.R. 239 and O'Shea v. The Director of Public ProsecutionsIR [1988] I.R. 655 applied; Gerstein v. PughUNK (1975) 420 U.S. 103 distinguished. 6. That since......
-
Quinlivan v Governor of Portlaoise Prison
...v. Kelleher [1983] I.R. 289; [1985] I.L.R.M. 10. The State (O.) v. O'Brien [1971] I.R. 42. The State (Shanahan) v. The Attorney General [1964] I.R. 239. In Re Joseph Suche & Co. Ltd. (1875-76) 1 Ch. D. 48. Swire v. Cookson (1883) 48 L.T. 877. Thompson v. Lack (1846) 3 C.B. 540. Zainal bin H......
-
Costello v DPP
...or the provisions of the Constitution relating to the administration of justice. The State (Shanahan) v. The Attorney GeneralIR [1964] I.R. 239 (S.C.) applied. On appeal by the plaintiff it was Held by the Supreme Court, in allowing the appeal, 1, that a District Justice, in conducting a pr......
-
The Administration of Justice, Arbitration and the Shari'a Law Tribunals of Ontario: A Constitutional Perspective
...power of the State.' 2 10 Hogan and Whyte, JM Kelly: The Irish Constitution (4 t e ed., Butterworths, 2003) at 634-636, para. [6.1.42]. " [1964] IR 239. 12 Ibid., at 248. [Vol. 8 2005] Arbitration in Ireland. A Constitutional Perspective 35 Kenny J. offered a slightly different definition o......