Attorney General v Judge Sheehy (Robert Paul)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1990
• Date: 01 January 1990
• Docket Number: [1988 Nos. 147, 148, 149 J.R.]
• Court: High Court

Attorney General v. Judge Sheehy (Robert Paul)

Attorney General

Applicant

and

His Honour Judge Sheehy, Respondent, and Robert Paul, John Patten, William Spearpoint, Notice Parties

[1988 Nos. 147, 148, 149 J.R.]

High Court

Criminal law - Return for trial - Accused returned for trial to date of altered Circuit Court sitting - Alteration not yet publicised - Whether return for trial bad on its face - Whether Circuit Court judge correct to strike out charges - District Court (Criminal Procedure Act, 1967,) Rules 1967 (S.I. 181 of 1967) - Criminal Procedure Act, 1967, (No. 12) ss. 5, 12 - Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1978, (No. 18) s. 19.

Where a person accused of an indictable offence has waived the District Court preliminary examination required by s. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967, s. 12 of the Act requires that"the District Justice shall send him forward for trial". The form of the order returning an accused for trial is prescribed by the District Court (Criminal Procedure Act, 1967) Rules, 1967, and requires that the venue and sitting of the Circuit Court to which the accused is returned be stated.

On the 9th January, 1988, each of the notice parties was arrested and brought before a special sitting of the District Court at which, having waived the normal preliminary examination conducted by the District Justice, they were sent forward for trial. The orders sending them forward for trial were identical and each stated "I hereby order that the accused be sent forward for trial on the aforesaid offences to the next sitting of the Circuit Court at Donegal on 2nd February, 1988".At the adjourned trial of the notice parties it was submitted on behalf of the notice parties that the orders of the District Court returning them for trial were bad on their face and that accordingly the respondent had no jurisdiction to try them. This submission was based on the fact that the Hilary sitting of the Circuit Court in Donegal had originally been fixed by the respondent to commence on the 8th March, 1988. On or about the 15th December, 1987, the respondent had directed that this date should be altered to the 2nd February, 1988, and the notice of the making of this change was published in Iris Oifigiuil on the 12th January, 1988. It was contended by the notice parties that as this notice had not been published before the order of the 9th January, 1988, returning them for trial, that order, in referring to 2nd February, 1988, as being the date for the commencement of the next sittings, was bad on its face and that accordingly the charges were not properly before the respondent so that he had no jurisdiction to hear them. This submission was accepted by the respondent who struck out the charges.

The applicant sought orders of certiorari and mandamus by way of judicial review to respectively quash the respondent's orders striking out the charges and to direct the respondent to hear and determine the charges against the notice parties. The applicant submitted that the District Court orders returning the notice parties for trial were in proper form and that they complied with the requirements of s. 12 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967, and that the respondent was accordingly wrong in declining jurisdiction.

Held by Blayney J., in granting the orders sought, 1, that the obligation created by s. 12 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967, was a simple obligation to return the accused for trial.

2. That the form of order prescribed by the District Court (Criminal Procedure Act, 1967) Rules, 1967, added in, as a matter of basic fairness, the requirement that the Justice specify whether the return was to the present or next sitting of the Circuit Court, and a requirement to indicate the venue for the trial.

3. That, even though the venue had to be specified in the order, the Circuit Court judge was not confined to holding the trial at that venue. So a return for trial was not invalidated by the trial being held at a different venue to that stated in the order. A fortiori a...