In the matter of an application by Stephen Robert O'Neill for judicial review
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Weatherup J |
| Judgment Date | 10 September 2004 |
| Neutral Citation | [2004] NIQB 55 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 10 September 2004 |
| Year | 2004 |
Ref:
WEAC5060
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
10/09/2004
(subject to editorial corrections)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
________
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY STEPHEN ROBERT
O’NEILL FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
WEATHERUP J
The application.
[1] This is an application for Judicial Review of the decisions of the
Director of Public Prosecutions and of Mr Perry, the Resident Magistrate
sitting at Belfast Magistrates’ Court, whereby the applicant, as a defendant in
summary criminal proceedings, was refused disclosure of the notebook
entries of police officers who were witnesses for the prosecution, in advance
of the hearing of the prosecution.
[2] A Notice of Incompatibility was issued pursuant to Section 5(1) of the
Human Rights Act 1998 and Order 121 Rule 2(1) of the Rules of the Supreme
Court (Northern Ireland) 1980 that the Court was considering making a
declaration of incompatibility under Section 4(2) of the 1998 Act further to the
applicant’s claim that Section 3 and Section 8 of the Criminal Procedure and
Investigations Act 1996 were incompatible with Article 6(1) and Article 6(3)(b)
of the European Convention on Human Rights. Mr Deeny QC and Mr Curran
appeared for the applicant, Mr McCloskey QC appeared for the DPP and Mr
Maguire appeared for the RM.
The Summary Criminal Proceedings.
[3] The applicant faces three charges at Belfast Magistrates’ Court namely
that on 29 July 2000 he used disorderly behaviour in a public place, he
resisted a constable in the due execution of his duty and he assaulted a
constable in the due execution of his duty.
To continue reading
Request your trial
1 books & journal articles
-
The Evolution of the Defence Statement
...notwithstanding that, in this case, the defence statement had been served some 18 months after primarydisclosure. See also, Re O’Neil [2004] NIQB 55. 13 CPIA, s. 11(2)(f)(i), although, ultimately, it will be open to the accused to submit updated defence statement under s. 6B (when implement......