Attorney General v Deignan
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 26 April 1946 |
| Date | 26 April 1946 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
- Evasion of duty - "Did knowingly harbour uncustomed goods" - Proceedings for recovery of penalty under s. 186 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876 - Whether necessary to insert in summons and prove "intent to defraud" - Customs Consolidation Act, 1876 (39 40 Vict., c. 36), s. 186.
The defendant was charged before a District Justice "that you did knowingly harbour uncustomed goods . . . contrary to s. 186 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876." It was argued on his behalf that s. 186 required that an "intent to defraud"must be proved by the complainant and that those words should have been set out in the summons. The District Justice held that these words should have been set out in the summons, and, as the summons did not do so, it disclosed no offence and he dismissed it. He stated a Case for the opinion of the High Court as to whether he was right in law in dismissing the summons. Held by Maguire P. that the District Justice was right in dismissing the summons, Maguire P. being of opinion that the contentions on behalf of the defendant, viz., that it was necessary for the complainant to set out in the summons and to prove an "intent to defraud," were correct. The complainant appealed to the Supreme Court. Held by the Supreme Court (Murnaghan, Geoghegan, O'Byrne and Black JJ.) that on a charge under s. 186 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, it is essential to establish an intent to defraud, and the appeal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Melling v O Mathghamhna
...in regard to revenue offences were in their nature civil as "wholly illegical" but, none the less wall recognised. 174In A.G. v. Deignan 1946 I.R. 542 at 548, Murnaghan J. says - "I amof opinion that proceedings under section 186 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876 are criminal proceedin......
-
Melling v O Mathghamhna
... ... (1959. NO. 333 P.) ... Melling v. O Mathghamhna and the Attorney General ... PETER MELLING ... Plaintiff ... MICHEÁL micheál SEOSAMH O MATHGHAMHNA, ... In Attorney-General v. Deignan (4) Mr. Justice Murnaghan says:—"I am of opinion that proceedings under s. 186 of the Customs ... ...
-
Minister for Justice and Equality v S.F.
...even the offence under s. 186 of the Act of 1876 required an intention to defraud. Reliance was placed upon Attorney General v. Deignan [1946] I.R. 542 in which the Supreme Court held, relying on the case of Frailey v. Charlton [1920] 1 KB 147, that the offences under that section require......
-
Minister for Justice and Equality v D.F.
...even the offence under s. 186 of the Act of 1876 required an intention to defraud. Reliance was placed upon Attorney General v. Deignan [1946] I.R. 542 in which the Supreme Court held, relying on the case of Frailey v. Charlton [1920] 1 KB 147, that the offences under that section require......