Kevin vs karen
![kevin vs karen kevin vs karen](https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/c_fill,f_auto,fl_progressive,g_center,h_675,pg_1,q_80,w_1200/li7qkkvbfmqp1npnmuxt.png)
Conor Parkinson is not represented by the State but it is only fair to include him in this ruling. They were eleven years old and twelve years old at the time. These small boys included Tomas Skinner and Conor Parkinson, and they have been joined in these proceedings as the 11th and 12th named defendants. On the 19th of May 2003 some small boys were out on the road kicking a football.
![kevin vs karen kevin vs karen](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c0/a7/d4/c0a7d46a64a22a9c1a86232aa5fc5a55.jpg)
The front garden of Kevin Tracey's house is very small. There was no evidence to suggest that any of the defendants had in any way planned together in order to undermine any right to which the plaintiffs were entitled. All relevant issues had been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. It was born of a motivation to overcome the finding of fact by the District Court, and the affirmation of that finding by the Circuit Court. The entirety of the case was an abuse of the process of the Court. Order 19 rules 27, 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986 provided that pleadings could be struck out on the basis that they disclosed no reasonable cause of action or were unnecessary or scandalous. The particulars pleaded in the statement of claim made it clear that all of the facts alleged were intricately and inextricably connected with each other. The court had an inherent jurisdiction to strike out any pleading which was bound to fail and defendants were entitled to have vexatious claims against them dismissed. No judicial review proceedings had been taken by the plaintiff to challenge the orders made in the District or Circuit Courts. Held by Charleton J in granting the motion and dismissing the plaintiffs' proceedings. The defendants brought the present motion seeking to strike out the pleadings of the plaintiffs on the basis that the claims were frivolous and vexatious, did not disclose a cause of action, and were an abuse of the process of the Court. The plaintiff claimed that the Judge had conspired to have a summons issued against him and that each defendant either committed perjury against him in order to bring home the prosecution or that they conspired against him. The plaintiff instituted proceedings which contained claims of conspiracy, assault and sundry breaches of constitutional rights including that the trial against him was unfair and had been orchestrated by another neighbour (who was a Judge). Both in the District Court and the Circuit Court the courts held that the facts alleged were proved but applied the provisions of the Probation Act. Separately a summons was issued against the plaintiff over an incident whereby he allegedly pushed one of the mothers of the young boys who had been playing football. The plaintiff made a complaint to the Garda Complaints Board which was subsequently dismissed. The plaintiff alleged that the Garda pushed him whilst doing so. Subsequently the ball was retrieved by another neighbour (who was a member of An Garda Síochána). Tracey, the first-named plaintiff, "the plaintiff"). Facts The proceedings arose out of an incident whereby a child kicked a ball into a neighbour's garden (Mr.