BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
High Court of Ireland Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> High Court of Ireland Decisions >> Butler v. Ruane [1988] IEHC 13 (21 July 1988) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/1988/13.html Cite as: [1988] IEHC 13 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE HIGH COURT
JUDICIAL REVIEW
JR No. 43/88.
BETWEEN
ANTHONY BUTLER
Applicant
and
DISTRICT JUSTICE JARLATH RUANE
Respondent
JUDGMENT OF MISS JUSTICE CARROLL, DELIVERED 21 DAY OF JULY 1988.
On the 29th day of January 1988 the Applicant was served with a summons alleging that on the 24th day of September 1987 he had committed an offence contrary to Section 49(3) and (4)(A) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 as amended. The return date for the summons was the 9th day of February 1988. On receiving the Summons the Applicant consulted his Solicitor and instructed them to brief a particular Counsel. There is an unexplained gap as to why no contact was made with the particular Counsel until the day before the hearing. When contact was made Counsel informed the Applicant's Solicitor that he would not be available on the 9th of February 1988. As a result the Applicant's Solicitor made a phone call to the Chief State Solicitor's Office to request an adjournment. The Chief State Solicitor's Office acceded to this request. This phone call puts this matter in a different category from cases where a Solicitor turns up on the date of a trial and seeks an adjournment on the ground of counsel's unavailability.
In this case there was an agreement to adjourn the matter, and this was confirmed next day by the Prosecuting Garda. The Applicant's Solicitor had no reason to expect that an adjournment would be refused. However when the matter came on for hearing the District Justice refused to grant an adjournment. No reason was given, nor was one obvious, for the refusal to grant an. adjournment. As a result of the refusal to grant an adjournment the Applicant had no proper or adequate opportunity to defend himself therefore I will grant the relief sought by the Applicant.
