Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
IESC 32 ECLI:IE:SC:2015:32 KI-generiert

Appeal dismissed; applicant's claim for judicial review of DPP's decision to prosecute is inadmissible.

Geschäftsnummer IESC 32
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Irland (IE)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Abgewiesen (Dismissed)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's appeal against the Director of Public Prosecutions' decision to prosecute him. The applicant argued that the DPP failed to consider relevant factors and acted unreasonably in pursuing the charges. The court held that the decision to prosecute is a matter of public policy and is not subject to judicial review on the grounds raised.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

s. 10 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1967; s. 10 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1967: The decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions to institute criminal proceedings is a matter of public policy and is not subject to judicial review.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
judicial review prosecution decision public policy Director of Public Prosecutions inadmissible appeal

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert

Fragen Sie sich, wie dieser Entscheid auf Ihren Fall anwendbar ist?

Prüfen Sie diesen Entscheid zusammen mit Bundesrecht, kantonalen Erlassen, Kommentaren und Folgeentscheiden in Legislator AI.

Fall in Legislator öffnen →

Volltext

THE SUPREME COURT

Appeal No: 222/2013 &

24/2013

Denham C.J.

Hardiman J.

O’Donnell J.

Clarke J.

Charleton J.

Between/

Mark Nash

Applicant/Appellant

and

The Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Judgment of Mr Justice O’Donnell delivered on the 29th day of January 2015

1 I agree with my colleagues that this appeal should be dismissed. Furthermore, I agree with much of what is said in the judgments of

Hardiman, Clarke and Charleton JJ some of which address matters of more general application. However, I am not in a position to

express concluded agreement with everything said in any one of the judgments, nor am I convinced that it would be useful or

desirable to offer a fourth view as to more general matters which, it follows, need not be determined in order to resolve this case. I

would accordingly reserve my consideration of those issues for a case in which any difference of emphasis between the respective

judgments might lead in the particular case to a different result.