Sullivan v Robinson
Jurisdiction | Ireland |
Judgment Date | 27 November 1954 |
Date | 27 November 1954 |
Court | Supreme Court |
Supreme Court - Appellate jurisdiction from "all decisions" of the High Court - Appeal by complainant from decision of High Court on case stated under s. 83 of Courts of Justice Act, 1924 - Leave to appeal not obtained from High Court - Whether jurisdiction to hear appeal Constitution of Ireland, Articles 34 and 58 - Constitution of the Irish Free State (Saorstat Eireann) Act, 1922 (No. 1 of 1922), Sch. I, Art. 64. Criminal law - Evidence -Admissibility - Admission by conduct - Charge of driving mechanically propelled vehicle while drunk - Accused subjected to examination and tests by medical doctor - Affirmative proof required that such examination and tests undergone voluntarily - Whether evidence of result admissible in absence of such proof - Road traffic - Examination and tests carried out by police doctor -Whether doctor a person in authority - Whether doctor's evidence admissible in absence of caution given to accused - Extent of warning necessary -Adequacy of warning a question of fact.
The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal against a decision of the High Court on a case stated under the provisions of s. 83 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, where leave to appeal has not been obtained from the High Court. As the provisions of Article 34, 4, 3 of the Constitution whereby the Supreme Court shall with such exceptions and subject to such regulations as may be prescribed by law have appellate jurisdiction from all decisions of the High Court, relate to the Supreme Court and the High Court to be established under the Constitution, and as such Supreme Court and High Court had not been established, the appellate...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Attorney General v O'Keeffe
...been voluntarily undergone, and the results thereof are accordingly admissible in evidence. So held by Haugh J. Sullivan v. Robinson [1954] I. R. 161 applied. Cur. adv. vult. Haugh J. :— Before a decision can be reached in this case, I have had to give careful consideration to the case rece......
-
DPP v Cash
...R v DEBOT 1989 2 SCR 1140 SHAABAN BIN HUSSEIN SBH & ORS v CHONK FOOD KAM CFK 1970 C 942 AG v MCGRATH 1965 9 ILTR 59 SULLIVAN v ROBINSON 1954 IR 161 AG v O'BRIEN 1965 IR 142 DPP v CLOSKEY UNREP O'HANLON 6.2.84 1984/4/1155 DPP v MCCREESH 1992 2 IR 239 DPP, PEOPLE v WALSH 1980 IR 294 DPP, PEOP......
-
DPP v F.E. (No 2)
...of the High Court”. (For the sake of historical accuracy, it should perhaps be noted that it was pointed out in Sullivan v. Robinson [1954] I.R. 161 that Article 34 did not in fact apply pending the establishment of the courts provided for under the Constitution of 1937 – this did not occur......
-
A.B. v Minister for Justice
...I.R. 341. The People v. O'Shea [1982] I.R. 384; [1983] I.L.R.M. 549. The State (Browne) v. Feran [1967] I.R. 147. Sullivan v. Robinson [1954] I.R. 161. Toth v. Austria (1991) 14 E.H.R.R. 551. Warner v. Minister for Industry and Commerce [1929] I.R. 582. Aliens - Judicial review - Procedure ......
-
Hermeneutic Perspectives On Judicial Activism: Dworkin, Constitutional Interpretation And Judicial Law-Making
...(2003) 22(2) Law Philos 167. 19G Hogan and J Whyte The Irish Constitution (Butterworths Dublin 2001) 5. 20Sullivan v Robinson [1954] IR 161, 21D Lyons ‘Reconstructing Legal Theory’ (Autumn 1987) Phil Pub Affairs 16 (4) 377. He notes at 383: ‘Reference to lawmakers’ intent is inherently ambi......