Courts / Ireland / Report
School bus anti-competition case may be split into two trials
Summary
The Central Criminal Court has heard that the trial of ten individuals and three companies accused of anti-competition offences regarding school bus services may be split into two separate proceedings. Counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Ms Tessa White BL, informed Mr Justice Paul McDermott that trying all 13 accused together posed practical difficulties. She applied to divide the cases into two batches, with the first indictment covering five accused and the second covering the remainder. The DPP alleged that the defendants, including Larry Hickey, Noel Browne, Frances Collison, Andrew Walsh, Margaret Callanan, Edward Callanan, Raymond Heney, Anthony Flynn, Elaine Glasheen, and Malachy Collison, entered into or authorized agreements that prevented, restricted, or distorted competition in the provision of school bus services between January 2014 and December 2016. These alleged offences are contrary to the Competition Act 2002. Defence counsel noted they had only recently received the proposal, with one stating he had no instructions on their attitude. Mr Justice McDermott adjourned the matter to the next list on July 26 to fix dates for the first trial, estimated to last four to five weeks, noting the second trial could be scheduled later. The cases were taken forward by the DPP at the behest of the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission following a 2016 investigation.
Who, what, where, when and why
What: Report matter: School bus anti-competition case may be split into two trials. Charges or matters: enter into or implement an agreement with other such undertakings which had as its object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition in trade in the provision of school bus services in the State; authorise or consent to the said undertaking entering into or implementing an agreement with other such undertakings which had as its object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition in trade in the provision of school bus services in the State. Procedural stage: charge_or_pretrial
When:
- July 26 Hearing Or Sentence
- January 1, 2014 Other
- December 31, 2016 Other
- 2023-07-07 Publication
Case subjects
Defendant
Charges: enter into or implement an agreement with other such undertakings which had as its object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition in trade in the provision of school bus services in the State (Alleged Or Contested)
Defendant
Charges: authorise or consent to the said undertaking entering into or implementing an agreement with other such undertakings which had as its object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition in trade in the provision of school bus services in the State (Alleged Or Contested)
Defendant
Charges: enter into or implement an agreement with other such undertakings which had as its object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition in trade in the provision of school bus services in the State (Alleged Or Contested)
Defendant
Charges: authorise or consent to the said undertaking entering into or implementing an agreement with other such undertakings which had as its object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition in trade in the provision of school bus services in the State (Alleged Or Contested)
Defendant
Charges: enter into or implement an agreement with other such undertakings which had as its object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition in trade in the provision of school bus services in the State (Alleged Or Contested)
Defendant
Charges: enter into or implement an agreement with other such undertakings which had as its object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition in trade in the provision of school bus services in the State (Alleged Or Contested)
Defendant
Charges: authorise or consent to the said undertaking entering into or implementing an agreement with other such undertakings which had as its object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition in trade in the provision of school bus services in the State (Alleged Or Contested)
Defendant
Charges: enter into or implement an agreement with other such undertakings which had as its object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition in trade in the provision of school bus services in the State (Alleged Or Contested)
Defendant
Charges: enter into or implement an agreement with other such undertakings which had as its object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition in trade in the provision of school bus services in the State (Alleged Or Contested)
Applicant
Defendant
Charges: authorise or consent to the said undertaking entering into or implementing an agreement with other such undertakings which had as its object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition in trade in the provision of school bus services in the State (Alleged Or Contested)
Places mentioned
- Central Criminal Court
- Annray House
- Golden Road
Topics
If a fact, identity, locality or legal outcome needs review, email the newsroom with this report's details prefilled.
Email a correction request