Armagh Justices v R (Wilbond)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 25 February 1918
• Date: 25 February 1918
• Court: King's Bench Division (Ireland)

R. (Wilbond)

and

Armagh Justices (1).

K. B. Div.

CASES

DETERMINED BY

THE KING'S BENCH DIVISION

OF

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND,

AND ON APPEAL THEREFROM IN

THE COURT OF APPEAL,

AND BY

THE COURT FOR CROWN CASES RESERVED.

1918.

Justices — Jurisdiction — Petty Sessions — Form of Order — Cases within the Petty Sessions Act — Omission to state whether dismiss “without prejudice” or “on the merits” — Certiorari — Prosecution by Police constable — Power to give costs against — Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851 (14 & 15 Vict. c. 93), s. 21.

An order of dismissal under sect. 21 of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851 (14 & 15 Vict. c. 93), is not invalid because it does not state whether the dismissal is “without prejudice” or “on the merits.” The provision of the section requiring this to be stated is merely directory.

Where a police constable sues as a common informer, there is jurisdiction to give costs against him, but in most cases the Court ought not to take this course.

Application to quash the orders and adjudications of the justices mentioned in an absolute order for certiorari, dated the 10th January, 1918. The orders and adjudications were made at Portadown Petty Sessions on the 28th May, 1917, on the hearing of a complaint designated “Thomas Reilly, Sergeant, R.I.C., complainant; Thomas James Peacock, defendant”: that defendant, at Portadown, on the 17th April. 1917, did cruelly ill-treat a horse, by working the animal while suffering from a sore, contrary to law.

The following order was made by the justices upon this complaint:— “Case dismissed, and complainant ordered to pay for costs the sum of twenty shillings, and in default of payment to be levied off his goods legally liable thereto by distress, warrant not to issue for seven clear days.”

On the 29th October, 1917, a conditional order to quash the conviction was made, on the application of the prosecutor, on the following grounds:—

1. That the order dated the 28th May, 1917, was made without jurisdiction.

2. That the said order was made in excess of jurisdiction.

3. That the said order was bad in so far as it awarded costs

against the complainant, being a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary, acting in discharge of his duties as a police officer.

4. That the said order was bad as not stating whether the summons was dismissed without prejudice or on the merits.

No cause having been shown by the justices or the defendant, the conditional order was made absolute. On the application coming before the Court on concilium to quash the justices' return, as there had been no appearance for the justices or the defendant, the Court suggested that counsel should be brought in by the Crown to argue the case as on behalf of the justices, and this course was adopted.

Serjeant M'Sweeney and S. L. Devitt, for the prosecutor:—

The jurisdiction of justices at Petty Sessions is purely statutory. The statute substitutes a brief form of order for the more cumbrous form which the common law would require, which should show complete jurisdiction on its face. The statutory order is, therefore, not merely directory but mandatory, and must be strictly followed. The present order is bad on its face: Great Southern and Western Railway v. Darby (1); Donelly v. Ingram (2); R. (Bridges and Ram) v. Armagh Justices (3); Ex parteConybeare (4).

There is no jurisdiction to award costs against a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary. He prosecutes in every case on behalf of the King. He is appointed, dismissed, and controlled by the Lord Lieutenant, and as such acts in all cases as the servant of the...