Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Findings of fact at preliminary stage of investigation

  • 04-01-2018 12:45am
    #1
    Gryffindor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 133 ✭✭


    Hi there,

    I've been trying some administrative law problem questions and something which keeps coming up is

    The findings of fact made at the preliminary stage of the investigation (of which the person being investigated had no notice) were accepted by the Inquiry Board at the start of the oral hearing.
    The person being investigated raised no issue with this at the oral hearing    .


    I understand that there is an issue concerning the fact that there was no notice given of the preliminary investigation, but what exactly is the significance of the findings of fact being accepted?

    I've got a really important exam coming up and I've honestly trawled through Hogan and Morgan but I can't find anything, so any suggestions would be very welcome.

    Thanks a mil!


Comments

  • #2
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,577 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Gryffindor wrote: »
    what exactly is the significance of the findings of fact being accepted?
    Based on the wording of the bit in italics, at no stage have they been accepted by the 'accused'.


  • #3
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • #4
    Gryffindor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 133 ✭✭Gryffindor


    Considering this is administrative law, I'm thinking more along the rules of fair procedures.
    Is a preliminary investigative body entitled to make "findings of fact"?. Is it included in the question purely to illustrate the fact that that the preliminary investigation had real consequences which would bolster the case that the individual should have had the full panoply of procedural fairness at that stage?
    Could it be that because they were 'accepted' at the start of the oral hearing mean that he lost his ability to cross-examine witnesses etc?


  • #5
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,577 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    But you can't object to something you don't necessarily know about.


  • #6
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,992 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Victor wrote: »
    But you can't object to something you don't necessarily know about.
    According to the OP, the findings of fact were accepted "at the start of the oral hearing".

    The subject of the investigation was (presumably) present at the oral hearing so, while he didn't know about the preliminary investigation at the time it was made, he did know about the acceptance of the findings at the time they were accepted.

    And again, per the OP, he "raised no issue with this at the oral hearing" - i.e. he didn't object to the findings of fact being accepted.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement