Kieran Owen Butler and the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland for Judicial review
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Gillen J |
| Judgment Date | 16 September 2003 |
| Neutral Citation | [2003] NIQB 64 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Year | 2003 |
| Date | 16 September 2003 |
1
Neutral Citation no. [2003] NIQB 64 Ref:
GILJ3666
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
16/9/03
(subject to editorial corrections)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION (JUDICIAL REVIEW)
------
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY:
(1) KIERAN OWEN BUTLER
AND
(2) THE POLICE OMBUDSMAN FOR NORTHERN IRELAND
FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
-------
GILLEN J
[1] There are two applications before the court. The first, (“hereinafter called
“Butler’s case”) is an application by Kieran Owen Butler who seeks judicial review of
a decision of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland (“PO”), the first
respondent and of a decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions (“the DPP”) the
second named respondent. The original relief sought was, with the leave of the
court, radically amended during the course of the hearing (as evidenced by the
amended Order 53 statement) and is now as follows:
(a) The applicant seeks a declaration that the learned resident magistrate is
entitled to issue a summons under Article 118 of the Magistrates’ Court
(Northern Ireland) Order 1981 to the Police Ombudsman, or any third party,
to produce the documents in question or any relevant document for
consideration by the court as to whether they contain material which may
assist the defence or undermine the prosecution and as to what material
ought to be disclosed to the defendant.
(b) Such further and other relief as may be appropriate.
The grounds upon which the relief is sought remained the same as for the original
application. They are as follows:
“(i) the first respondent erred in concluding and deciding
upon adopting a policy of baldly refusing to permit
2
disclosure of the complaints investigation to the applicant
in the circumstances.
(ii) the first respondent erred in asserting that they are
prohibited by Section 63 of the Police (Northern Ireland)
Act 1998 from disclosing to the applicant the contents of
the investigation file where the applicant is the person
being prosecuted for alleged offences arising out of
matters which are the subject of the complaint.
(iii) the first respondent has erred in deciding that there is no
proper method of making such disclosure in cases being
dealt with in the Magistrates’ Court and that a
Magistrates’ Court is essentially not competent to make
an order for disclosure in the interests of public justice for
the proper conduct and disposal of the proceedings
before that court.
(iv) the first respondent erred in asserting to the second
respondent that it had a right to a defence statement and
had a role in deciding what documents, if any, would be
disclosed to the second respondent.
(v) that the first respondent has behaved throughout in an
arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair and unlawful manner.
(vi) the second respondent has erred in failing to comply with
its obligation to obtain materials pursuant to its
obligation under the Attorney General’s Guidelines on
disclosure and its obligation under the Police and
Criminal Procedure and Investigation (Northern Ireland)
Act 1996.
(vii) the second respondent has erred in accepting the first
respondent’s assertion that the first respondent, as a third
party agency exercising no prosecutorial function and
having no duty under the Attorney General’s guidelines,
has a role in deciding what material, if any, should be
made available to the second respondent”.
[2] I remain unconvinced that the grounds upon which the relief is sought
correlate to the sole relief now sought and to that end therefore I shall make some
comment in this judgment on the duties of the second respondent, namely the DPP.
To continue reading
Request your trial
3 cases
-
R v Hoey (Sean)
...by witness summons under the Judicature Act. [13] A number of cases were referred to, namely R.v.ON [2001] NI 136; Butler's Application [2004] NI 93; R.v. Hewitt & Anderson [2002] NICC 12 and R.v. Hume [2005] NICC 30. There is extensive consideration of these issues by Girvan J in R.v.ON. A......
-
In the matter of an application by the Official Solicitor on behalf of N and R for Judicial Review
...not mean that it is necessary for a fair trial in the Family Proceedings Court – see in this context the judgment of Gillen J in Re Butler [2004] NI 93 at page 109, paragraph 36.” 3 [2] The relevant facts in this case are very few, but the legal issue is difficult. The relevant factual matt......
-
In the matter of an application for Judicial Review by S, a minor, by his mother and next friend
...51 suggested might be required. In its correspondence PPS had referred to the decision in Butler –v- Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland [2004] NI 93 (where it was held that there was no third party disclosure in the magistrates’ court) in a way which implied that the request made on the ......