Attorney General v Beirne
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Court | High Court |
| Judgment Date | 12 January 1943 |
| Date | 12 January 1943 |
High Court.
Practice - Procedure - Case Stated under Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1857 -Prosecution in District Court - Jurisdiction of District Justice to try case challenged - Conviction - Case Stated on question of jurisdiction - Whether questions of jurisdiction may be made the subject of a Case Stated - Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1857 (20 & 21 Vict. c. 43), s. 2 - Offences against the Person Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 100), ss. 38, 42 - Summary Jurisdiction (Ir.) Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 50), ss. 9, 10.
B. was charged in the District Court with unlawfully assaulting, resisting or wilfully obstructing R., a peace officer, in the execution of his duty.
At the hearing, the jurisdiction of the District Justice to determine the case was challenged on two grounds, viz.: 1, that the offence disclosed in the summons was a misdemeanour triable on indictment, and 2, that it had not been proved in evidence that R. had authorised any one to bring proceedings against B., nor did the summons set out on its face that R. had declined to prosecute. The District Justice convicted B. of assault, but stated a Case for the opinion of the High Court on the question whether or not he had jurisdiction to do so.
Held that both the objections raised in the District Court were objections that went to the jurisdiction; that the rulings of the District Justice on objections of this nature could not be tested on a Case Stated, and that the defendant should have proceeded by way of certiorari.
Accordingly, the Court refused to consider the questions raised in the Case Stated.
Case Stated by the District Justice for District No. 4, County of Leitrim, District Court Area of Carrick-on-Shannon.
The Case Stated was as follows:—
"1. At the District Court held at Carrick-on-Shannon on October 2nd, 1942, the defendant appeared in answer to a summons served on him at the instance of the complainant and charging him (the defendant) that on July 13th, 1942, he did assault, resist, or wilfully obstruct Guard Charles Reid, a peace officer, in the due execution of his duty. [A certified copy of the summons was attached to the Case.]
At the commencement of the proceedings before me, Mr. Murray, solicitor (acting for Mr. Cathal L. Flynn, solicitor for the defendant) asked that Mr. Lynch, State Solicitor, who conducted the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Attorney General v Burke
...were invalid. So held by Davitt P. The State (Attorney General) v. Judge Fawsitt [1955] I. R. 39 followed;Attorney General v. Beirne[1943] I. R. 480 distinguished. Davitt P. :— The facts of this case are briefly these: the defendant was, late at night on Saturday, 5th September, 1953, drivi......
-
DPP v Roche and Kelly
...wrong then the District Justice had jurisdiction to deal with the case and, accordingly, to state a case. Attorney General v. BeirneIR[1943] I.R. 480 distinguished. Sports Arena Ltd.v. District Justice O'ReillyIR [1987] I.R. 185 applied. 2. That the application for the issue of the summonse......
-
Sports Arena Ltd v O'Reilly
...S51(1) SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT 1857 S2 TURLEY, STATE V O'FLOINN 1968 IR 245 COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACT 1961 S51 AG V BEIRNE 1943 IR 480, 77 ILTR 74 COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACT 1961 S52 AG V BURKE 1955 IR 30 SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT 1857 S5 SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT 1857......
-
Ag v Wallace
...6.2.87 SANGAN, STATE V O SIORAIN UNREP MCMAHON 26.1.81 O'MAHONY V MELIA 1989 IR 335 MAGUIRE V SHELLEY & DPP 1992 1 IR 483 AG V BEIRNE 1943 IR 480 LYNCH, STATE V BALLAGH 1986 IR 203 KEATING V GOV OF MOUNTJOY PRISON 1991 1 IR 61 1 Mr. Justice Geoghegandelivered the 5th day of June 2This is an......