User:Kal-97/sandbox

Alan  Garvey v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Governor of Mountjoy Prison and the Attorney General (Notice Party) [2006] 1 I.L.R.M. 486
Alan Garvey v The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Another [2006] 1 IR 548: [2006] IESC 3 was a Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that to allow an internal disciplinary inquiry relating to an allegation that had been previously acquitted in the Criminal Courts and would be based on the same evidence and witness's that must have been discussed in the previous court would be unfair and oppressive

Background
Every Irish Supreme Court case should use the infobox court case template. This can be the last part to add to your article. When you are in edit mode you can click on the infobox and select edit or you can use "edit source" to add information. If you have any trouble with the infobox post a message on the Moodle discussion forum asking for help.

In this case the applicant, a Prison Guard in Mountjoy Prison had brought judicial review proceedings against the suspension of his employment. Before the Judicial Review took place the DPP brought criminal charges against him for serious assault. The Judicial review proceedings took place on the 8th May 2001 and was settled whereby the Judicial review proceedings were struck out with no order. The Criminal trial took place on the 18th February 2002 and a verdict of not guilty was held. The Appellant then requested that his suspension was lifted but this was not done and instead was giving a list of disciplinary charges under the Prison (Disciplinary Code for Officers) Rules, 1996. Disciplinary proceedings instigated against him by the second named respondent had been the subject of a judicial review action on the grounds that he could not be subject to disciplinary proceedings involving alleged misconduct which would otherwise constitute a criminal charge of which he had already been acquitted on the merits in the Criminal Court

The applicant was suspended from employment for the alleged misconduct and challenged the lawfulness of the suspension and obtained leave in the High Court to bring judicial review proceedings. Before the proceedings began The Department of Public Prosecutions (DPP) brought criminal allegations against the appellant. The judicial review proceedings took place prior to the criminal charges and was struck out on agreed terms. The applicant brought an appeal to the Supreme Court claiming that disciplinary action can't be taken against him in respect to matters relating to a prosecution previously taken which had resulted in an acquittal.

Holding of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that it would be unfair an oppressive to allow disciplinary proceedings to continue given that the matter at had had been previously dealt with in the Criminal Courts and the disciplinary proceedings would deal with the same evidence and witness's that had been discussed inn the previous court. With reference to the cases of McGrath v Commissioner of An Garda Síochána applied and Mooney v An Post distinguished, Geoghegan J., Murray C.J. and Denham J. concurring,the Supreme Court stated that there was no necessary preclusion of any question of res judicata

Subsections or a paragraph for concurring and dissenting opinions can also be added as appropriate. Should be in the form of "Concurrences" and "Dissents" for section headers.

Subsequent developments
This is an optional section. Whether your article has it or not depends on the sources you find on Westlaw IE.Cases that clarify/reverse; relevant developments for the parties or dispute (outcome of remand/"Nixon turned over his tapes..."), social effects. Be sure to include citations in support of any claim you make here about the case's subsequent impact.

Refer forward to subsequent cases citing this decision as precedent.

Infobox, located at the right of the article in its own box (this is 'sub-heading 1')
Every Irish Supreme Court case should use the infobox court case template. This can be the last part to add to your article. When you are in edit mode you can click on the infobox and select edit or you can use "edit source" to add information. If you have any trouble with the infobox post a message on the Moodle discussion forum asking for help.

What belongs here:
This section includes facts of the dispute, its history in lower courts, and relevant historical/political context. Subsections may include history, facts of the case, procedural history or lower courts (or even a subsection for each lower court, appropriately titled), and petition (for certiorari). You can cite the judgement when you are summarizing the facts of the case.

Oral arguments can go at the end of this section if you choose the "Opinion of the Court" style (see full explanation below).

Holding of the Supreme Court
This section should contain a summary of the Court's opinion as well as any important events of note that occurred during the case. Use this section for excerpts from the decision and precedents cited.

Subsections or a paragraph for concurring and dissenting opinions can also be added as appropriate. Should be in the form of "Concurrences" and "Dissents" for section headers.

Subsequent developments
This is an optional section. Whether your article has it or not depends on the sources you find on Westlaw IE.Cases that clarify/reverse; relevant developments for the parties or dispute (outcome of remand/"Nixon turned over his tapes..."), social effects. Be sure to include citations in support of any claim you make here about the case's subsequent impact.

Refer forward to subsequent cases citing this decision as precedent.