Ward v Minister for Agriculture
Jurisdiction | Ireland |
Judge | Mr. Justice Morris |
Judgment Date | 24 June 1997 |
Neutral Citation | [1997] IEHC 104 |
Docket Number | No. 105 J.R./1994. |
Court | High Court |
Date | 24 June 1997 |
[1997] IEHC 104
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
Citations:
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ACT 1972 S3
MALLON V MIN FOR AGRICULTURE & AG 1996 1 IR 517
MEAGHER V MIN FOR AGRICULTURE 1994 1 ILRM 1
MEAGHER V MIN FOR AGRICULTURE 1994 1 ILRM 11
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (CONTROL OF OESTROGENIC ANDROGENIC GESTAGENIC & THYROSTATE SUBSTANCES) REGS 1988 SI 218/1988 REG 32(8)
B V DPP 1997 3 IR 190 1997 2 ILRM 118
Synopsis:
Criminal
Delay; alleged possession of "angel dust"; plaintiff's premises searched in March 1992; summonses served February 1994; defendants awaiting outcome of related test case; whether unreasonable and unconscionable delay in the application for and service of the proceedings.
Held: Delay not unreasonable; order of prohibition refused. High Court; Morris J. 24/06/97
Ward v. Minister of Agriculture
Judgment of Mr. Justice Morrisdelivered on the 24th day of June1997.
The issue that I have to try is comparatively clear-cut, however, in order to identify the issue it is necessary for me to shortly state the facts that have arisen in this case.
The Applicant is a businessman and has been involved over a number of years in the importation and distribution of veterinary pharmaceutical products. On the 27th March, 1992 Gardai and other officials in possession of a search warrant searched the Applicant's home and four days later on the 31st March, 1992 Gardai and other persons in possession of a search warrant searched his offices at No. 31 Lower Baggot Street, Dublin 4. A dispute arises as to what statements, if any, may have been made by the Applicant afterthese searches. However, over a period of approximately a month he remained in communication with the Garda Superintendent in charge of the case. Thereafter he heard nothing further about the matter until the 25th February, 1994 when five summonses were served upon the Applicant (hereinafter referred to as the 1994 summonses). These alleged possession of prohibited substances namely a veterinary medicine containing clenbuterol contrary to regulations made pursuant to Section 3 of the European Communities Act, 1972. This substance is otherwise known as "Angel Dust".
On the 14th March, 1994 the Applicant applied for leave to apply by way of Judicial Review for an order prohibiting the first and fourth named Respondents from proceeding with the prosecution of the summonses on six grounds. The sixth ground was that the first named Respondent had been guilty of unreasonable and unconscionable delay in the service of theproceedings.
By order of the 14th March, 1994 Geoghegan J. granted the Applicant leave to apply for orders of prohibition in accordance with the reliefsclaimed.
Thereafter the Applicant's claim for Judicial Review stalled. I am satisfied that this happened because his was but one of a number of cases awaiting the result of a test case in the Supreme Court namely Frank Mallon -v- The Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Ireland and the Attorney General. Judgment was given in this matter by the Supreme Court on the 20th April, 1996 and as a consequence all the grounds upon which leave to seek Judicial Review other than delay in serving the summonses were ruled and were no longer open to the Applicant to be relied upon.
The progress of the summonses in the District Court was further set back by the fact that on the 17th April, 1996 (3 days before the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the Mallon case) the District Judge having grown weary of repeated adjournments struck out thefive 1994 summonses. However, five new summonses (referred to the as the 1996 summonses) were issued on the 29th October, 1996 returnable for the 25th November, 1996. A second application was made seeking liberty to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
DPP v Judge Constantine O'Leary, Kieran Corkery and Others
...BLOOD v DPP UNREP SUPREME 2.3.2005 2005/5/844 DPP v CLIFFORD 2002 4 IR 398 WARD v MIN AGRICULTURE UNREP MORRIS 24.6.1997 1998/10/3233 1997 IEHC 104 DPP v BYRNE 1994 2 IR 236 1994/2/483 CLUNE v DPP 1981 ILRM 17 C (D) v DPP 2005 4 IR 281 2006 1 ILRM 348 2005 IESC 77 2005 8 1599 O'H v DPP ......