Sunshine Radio Productions Ltd v Attorney General

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Murphy
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1984
• Neutral Citation: 1985 WJSC-HC 2777
• Date: 01 January 1984
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: No. 3680P./1983

SUNSHINE RADIO v. AG

SUNSHINE RADIO PRODUCTIONS LIMITED, JOHN ROBINSON AND JOHNROBINSON T/A SUNSHINE RADIO

PLAINTIFFS

AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, IRELAND AND THE MINISTER FOR POSTS ANDTELEGRAPHS

DEFENDANTS

1985 WJSC-HC 2777

No. 3680P./1983

THE HIGH COURT

Synopsis:

INJUNCTION

Interlocutory

Mandatory - Illegal broadcasts - Plaintiff's broadcasting equipment seized - Injunction sought directing return of equipment - Injunction refused - (1983 No.3680P - Murphy J. - 10/6/83).

|Sunshine Radio v. Attorney General|

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Murphydelivered the 10th day of June, 1983.

2 The facts of this case, the arguments made and the relief sought are similar to those dealt with in the Judgment just delivered.

3 It is perhaps proper to note that in this matter the defendants did seek establish with greater certainty that the plaintiff company had been responsible for certain radio interference caused at Dublin Airport. On the other hand the plaintiffs produced detailed evidence on affidavit in refutation of this charge. All that can be said at this stage is that the conflict in this area has been heightened. Clearly it cannot be resolved until the various witnesses can be heard and cross examined on their evidence.

4 Another feature of this case which to some extent distinguishes it from the Radio Nova proceedings is the fact that the plaintiff company has not resumed broadcasting since its equipment was seized by the Minister. It is not clear whether this is due to the absence of appropriate equipment or a policy decision made by the plaintiffs. However as I understand it the plaintiffs in these proceedings - unlike the plaintiffs in the Radio Novaproceedings - are pressing an application for a Mandatory Injunction for the return of the equipment.

5 As I have already indicated in the Radio Nova proceedings on facts which are substantially the same as those in the present case I do not accept that this is a proper case in which to grant a negative injunction. A fiortiori it would be wholly inappropriate to make a positive order. Indeed, whatever might be said in favour of restraining further action by the defendants I would find it impossible to see how a court set up under the Constitution could, on an interlocutory application, direct a Government Minister to return equipment to a plaintiff to enable that plaintiff to commit what is on the face of it a criminal offence.

6 Accordingly, the application will...