Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
IESC 32 ECLI:IE:SC:2015:32 Generato dall'IA

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

Numero d'incarto IESC 32
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Irlanda (IE)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Respinto (Dismissed)
Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

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.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

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.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
judicial review prosecution decision public policy Director of Public Prosecutions inadmissible appeal

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
s. 10 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1967
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT, 1967

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

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.