The Supreme Court has criticised the form of a Circuit Court case stated which arrived with a 299-page transcript of evidence attached, saying appellate courts should instead be given a clear statement of the facts and the precise legal question to be decided.
Mrs Justice Denham delivered the judgment on 30 May 2001 in proceedings between Simon McGinley and a deciding officer of the Criminal Assets Bureau.
The case reached the Supreme Court under section 16 of the Courts of Justice Act 1947, which allows a Circuit Court judge to refer a question of law arising in a pending matter.
Mrs Justice Denham agreed with a separate judgment of Mr Justice Fennelly on the issues in the case but added specific observations about how a case stated should be prepared.
She said it was highly unusual for the full transcript of several days of evidence, running to 299 pages, to be appended to the case stated.
Drawing on earlier authorities, the judge said a properly drafted case should set out facts in consecutively numbered paragraphs, followed by the parties' contentions, the judge's findings and the precise point of law requiring determination.
The central practical point was that a case stated should contain findings of fact, not merely reproduce evidence. An appellate court should not generally be required to search attached transcripts or other documents to discover the facts, arguments or determination below.
Mrs Justice Denham adopted those principles for cases stated from the Circuit Court to the Supreme Court. However, despite the defects identified in this particular case, she concluded that it would not be appropriate to send the matter back to the Circuit Court judge for re-statement.
This judgment is confined largely to the procedural form of a case stated. The substantive result of McGinley's dispute is addressed in Mr Justice Fennelly's separate judgment and is not set out in the text reproduced here.