User:WanderlustReader/sandbox

DPP v Gilligan (No 2), [2006] IESC 42; [2007] 1 ILRM 182; [2006] 3 IR 273 ,was a Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the trial court had made an error in not restricting itself to consideration of the individual charges which were proved.

Background
John Gilligan, the applicant, was convicted on the 15th of March 2001 by the Special Criminal Court of drug offences. This offences involved importation of drugs into the State, and possession with the purpose of sale or supply of cannabis resin between July 1994 and October 1996. Gilligan was sentenced to a term of twenty eight years imprisonment for each of six counts of possession for the purpose of sale or supply, with the sentences to run concurrently. In respect of the five counts of unlawful importation of a controlled drug, Gilligan was sentenced to a a term of twelve years. These terms were also to run concurrently.

Gilligan, the applicant, then applied to the Court of Criminal Appeal against these sentences. Two separate judgements were made by the court of Appeal. Firstly, the applicant's appeal was refused by a judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal on the 8th of August, 2003. Secondly, in a judgement from the 12th of November, 2003, the sentences were reduced from twenty eight years imprisonment to twenty years imprisonment regarding the convictions of possession of a controlled drug for the purpose of sale or supply. The conviction of twelve years imprisonment for unlawful importation of a controlled drug was upheld by the Court.

The Court of Appeal certified that pursuant to s.29 of The Courts of Justice Act 1924, the decision to refuse leave to appeal conviction involved points of law that were of exceptional public importance, and it was in public interest that an appeal should be taken to the Supreme Court on that decision.

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.

Mc Farlane v DPP
Mc Farlane v DPP, [2007] 1 IR 134; [2006] IESC 11, was a Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that McFarlane was not exposed to a serious risk of an unfair trial. They found that the High Court were correct in refusing his prohibition application, as McFarlane's right to a trial with reasonable expedition did not outweigh the public interest in prosecuting him, given the serious convictions he faced.

Background
In 1976, McFarlane was sentenced to life in a Northern Ireland prison in connection with an IRA bombing of a bar on the Shankhill Road, Belfast. This resulted in five people being killed.

In 1983 however, McFarlane escaped prision and was alleged to have kidnapped a supermarket executive named Don Tidey.

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.