Attorney General v Sullivan

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 12 July 1964
• Date: 12 July 1964
• Court: Supreme Court

(S.C.)

Attorney-General

and

Sullivan

Acts of preparation - Acts proximate to intended offences - Evidence - Form of charges - Particularity of alleged offences - Omission of statement that offences were contrary to statute or common law.

M.S. was a registered midwife, employed by the Cork Corporation under an agreement between her and the South Cork Board of Public Assistance, whereby she contracted to provide midwifery services, which the Board was under a statutory obligation to provide in certain cases. Her basic salary was £208 per annum and she was entitled to £4 4s. 0d. for every case attended by her for the Board in any year in excess of twenty-five cases; until this latter figure was reached no fees were payable to her. M.S. was charged in the District Court on three summonses with unlawfully attempting to obtain money by false pretences with intent to defraud. On the hearing of the summonses it was alleged that she had prepared certain prescribed forms which, if genuine, would have signified her professional attendance on the patients named in the said forms, and had them signed by supposed patients. In fact M.S. did not attend any of these patients and the forms so submitted by her to the Board were fictitious, and, it was alleged, were presented with fraudulent intent. There was no evidence of the number of patients in fact attended by M.S. in the material year. The cases came before the District Justice as indictable crimes, but in exercise of the statutory power in that behalf were tried summarily. At the conclusion of the cases for the prosecution, counsel for M.S.applied to the Court to have the charges dismissed on the ground that there was no evidence of the alleged attempt in any of the charges. The District Justice dismissed the charges and, on the application of the complainant, stated a Case for the opinion of the High Court as to whether upon the facts his determination was correct in law. Held by the Supreme Court ( Ó Dálaigh C.J., and Walsh J.; Lavery J. dissenting), affirming Teevan J. 1, that in as much as the District Justice formed the opinion that in law there was not a prima facie case of intent to defraud or a prima facie case that the accused's actions were not consistent only with the carrying...