Attorney General v McTiernan
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1953 |
| Date | 01 January 1953 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
Customs offence - Smuggling - Prosecution therefor in District Court - Option of Revenue Commissioners to sue for penalty or for treble the value of the goods -Election of Revenue Commissioners to sue for penalty - Proof of such election - Amendment of charges sought to add a statement that the Revenue Commissioners had so elected - Election of Commissioners not proved in evidence - Written statement signed by a Revenue Commissioner that such election had been made produced in Court -Adjournment of case for legal argument - At resumed hearing fresh evidence of election of Commissioners offered - Refusal of District Justice to accept such fresh evidence - Whether such refusal correct - Excise Management Act, 1827 (7 8 Geo. 4, c. 53), s. 71 - Customs Consolidation Act, 1876 (39 40 Vict. c. 36), ss. 233, 260 - Inland Revenue Regulation Act, 1890 (53 54 Vict. c. 21), ss. 21, 24 - Finance Act, 1934 (No. 31 of 1934), s. 35 - Courts of Justice Act, 1928 (No. 15 of 1928), s. 19 - Customs (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1945 (No. 14 of1945), s. 3 - Emergency Powers (Control of Export) Order, 1940 (S.R. O. No. 149 of 1940).
M. was charged in the District Court on the 19th July, 1950, with three offences in relation to smuggling of sugar. None of the charges contained any averment that the Revenue Commissioners elected to sue for a penalty. At the hearing in the District Court an application was made, on behalf of the Attorney General for an amendment of the charges by adding at the end of each charge an averment that the Revenue Commissioners had elected to sue for £100. As proof of such election two documents, dated the 17th April, 1950, were produced by the State. Each of these documents was signed by one Revenue Commissioner. The application for the amendment was opposed on behalf of the defendant. Evidence was then heard on behalf of the Attorney General, the District Justice deferring his decision on the point relating to the amendment. At the conclusion of the evidence for the prosecution the District Justice stated that he would grant the amendment if the State could show that the election of the Revenue Commissioners to sue for £100 on each charge had been proved. It was contended for the State, that the documents already produced automatically proved that election. No witness had identified either of the documents in question. The State Solicitor not being then prepared to argue the point, the case was adjourned...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bates v Brady
...1 IR 228 CAREY V HUSSEY & DPP 2000 2 ILRM 401 1999/4/672 DAWSON V HAMILL 1990 ILRM 257 DUFFIN V MARKHAM 1918 LT 148 AG V MCTIERNAN 1951 87 ILTR 162 CORBETT, AG V HALFORD 1976 IR 318 VERDON V DOWNES UNREP SUPREME 29.7.1976 1976/10/1383 DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACT 1966 FOOT & MOUTH DISEASE OR......
-
James O'Keeffe v Judge Joseph Mangan and Another
...whether that evidence may now be given was not discussed in argument. The decision of this Court inAttorney General v. McTiernan [1951] 87 ILTR 162 establishes that, in a prosecution in the District Court, the District Justice may allow further evidence of formal matters to be given after t......
-
O'Keeffe v District Judge Mangan & DPP
...Clarke [1966] 1 W.L.R. 788." 27 27. The Supreme Court had previously adopted a similar approach in Attorney General v. McTiernan (1951) 87 I.L.T.R. 162. In that case the District Judge had refused to allow the prosecution to supply documentary evidence following the close of its case to sho......
-
Attorney General (Corbett) v Halford
...discretion, whether to receive the evidence of the veterinary inspector when the case returns to him - see Attorney General v. McTiernan 87 I.L.T.R. 162. 12Judgment delivered 5th April 1976.KENNY KENNY J.: 13The defendant, Tony Halford, is an apprentice jockey whose home is in England. In 1......