User:Tealover1512/sandbox

Whelton v District Judge O'Leary and DPP [2010] IESC 63 was an Irish criminal law case in the Irish Supreme Court which referenced rearrests and detention under s. 10(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1984. The effect of the courts ruling was a more stringent approach around the timing of a charge rather than the purpose around the arrest. The adverb "forthwith" creating a threshold more demanding than as soon as practicable or possible. This threshold being a question of fact, regarding to the circumstances of the particular case. In addition the failure to preserve certain evidence was of concern. The traditional test of real or serious risk of an unfair trial was applied in this instant. The appellant failing to establish the significant extension of the obligations of the prosecution authorities.

A Wikipedia article is written in a neutral point of view. Do not editorialize; you should support any claims by citing reputable sources. For an Irish Supreme Court case your article should consist of an accurate summary of the case including the background, the arguments in the case, and a clear explanation of the Court's decision and its significance.

The first section of an article is the lead. Its job is to provide a short summary and, crucially, communicate the significance of the topic. The lead should only be a sentence or two long. You must include a citation to at least one source from Westlaw IE when you describe the significance of the case. Review the video on Moodle that shows how to find sources using Westlaw IE. If you have trouble finding sources then please ask for help. Your lead should resemble:

Case name, [1992] IESC 1; [1992] 1 IR 1, was a Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held ...

(It is easiest to edit using the 'visual editor' rather than editing the source of the article. If you are not sure how to set your preferences please review the tutorial video on Moodle).

(You do not have to add the table of contents; Wikipedia does this automatically.)

Facts
In 2005, the Defendant was employed as a cashier at an amusement arcade in Cork. His employer suspected theft due to a decrease in profit. He commenced an investigation with the Gardai and viewed the CCTV footage.The Gardai Preserving only three and a half minutes from three hours of footage taken as evidence. The footage was of the defendant in his cashier’s kiosk on three separate occasions taking currency notes from the till and placing these notes in his left trouser pocket. He argues that he was unfairly depicted as taking money from the till. Explaining that staff followed this practice when the cash float was insufficient to meet a playout to a winning customer, employees would lend to the cash float on a temporary basis and staff members would then repay themselves at a later stage. The applicant was charged in the District Court with theft contrary to s. 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 2001. He was rearrested by An Garda Síochána as permitted by s. 10(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1984 and was detained for 55 minutes before being charged.

Issues

The defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the District Court on the ground that he had not been lawfully charged and detained following his second arrest. Claiming he had not been charged "forthwith" as required by the Act of 1984 depriving the District Court of jurisdiction to try him.

A second issue being the defendants objection to C.C.T.V. footage of the offence, preserving only reacted clips of footage which infringed on his right to a fair trial. On the basis of these to arguments he believed both convictions should quashed.

The third ground relates to the complaint that the judge of the District Court acted improperly in failing to adjourn the proceedings before him to allow the defendant to launch judicial review proceedings in the High Court.

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.

Judgements
District Court: Mr. Whelton was charged and convicted of theft on the 11th May, 2006 by the District Court. For stolen property, to wit a sum of money, contrary to s. 4 of the Criminal Justice Act. He was sentenced to four months imprisonment, which was conditionally suspended. An appeal to the Cork Circuit Criminal Court against that conviction remains pending.

High Court: On the 15th January, 2007, the appellant obtained leave from the High Court (Peart J.) to seek an order of certiorari quashing both conviction and sentence in the supreme court. On the grounds of two separate issues. (i) when the appellant was charged, the provisions of s. 10(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1984 (the “Act of 1984”) were violated; and (ii) the Gardaí failed to retrieve or retain and, in any event, to make available, the complete and unedited C.C.T.V. footage of the events and circumstances surrounding this offence. Birmingham J. rejected both claims

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
Fennelly J stated in his judgement that there 1. must be intention to arrest immediately "forthwith". Forthwith qualifying not the purpose of the arrest but rather the timing of the charge. Delays in being charged must not breach 1984 act Section 10(2) is predicated on an act of rearrest which, depending on circumstances, may be pre-planned, as here, or it may be fortuitous or random.

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.

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.