O'Brien v O'Halloran

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Geogheghan
• Judgment Date: 29 November 2000
• Neutral Citation: [2000] IESC 28
• Court: Supreme Court
• Docket Number: [S.C. No. 307 of 1999]
• Date: 29 November 2000

[2000] IESC 28

THE SUPREME COURT

Denham J.

McGuinness J.

Geoghegan J.

307/99

O'BRIEN v. JUDGE O'HALLORAN & DPP & ORS

BETWEEN/

ADRIAN O'BRIEN

Applicant/Respondent

and

DISTRICT JUDGE MARYO'HALLORAN,

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLICPROSECUTIONS,

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE QUALITYAND

LAW REFORM, IRELAND AND THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Respondents/Appellants

Citations:

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S49(2)

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S49(6)(a)

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1994 S10

COURTS (NO 3) ACT 1986

DISTRICT COURT DISTRICTS & AREAS (AMDT) & VARIATION OF DAYS (NO 5) ORDER 1998 SI 376/1998 EXPLANATORY NOTE

COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT 1953 S26

COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACT 1961 S33

DISTRICT COURT DISTRICTS & AREAS (AMDT) & VARIATION OF DAYS (NO 5) ORDER 1998 SI 376/1998 ART 6

REILLY, STATE V CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE OF MIDLAND CIRCUIT & DISTRICT JUSTICE FOR PORTLAOISE 1936 IR 377

COURT OFFICERS ACT 1926 S47

COURTS (ESTABLISHMENT & CONSTITUTION) ACT 1961

COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT 1924 S79

COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACT 1961 S32(1)

COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT 1953 S21

DISTRICT JUSTICES (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT 1923

CONSTABULARY (IRL) ACT 1836

COURT OFFICERS ACT 1926 PART I

COURT OFFICERS ACT 1926 PART II

COURT OFFICERS ACT 1926 PART III

COURT OFFICERS ACT 1926 PART IV

COURT OFFICERS ACT 1926 S65

COURT OFFICERS ACT 1926 S65(1)

COURTS ACT 1971 S15

Synopsis

Practice and Procedure

Practice and procedure; jurisdiction of District Court; applicant had been convicted of a road traffic offence on foot of a summons returnable for a particular District Court area; heading of summons had referred to a different District Court area within the same district; because of state of repair of the courthouse serving the latter area, all of its lists were being heard in the former area; on return date, applicant's solicitor had appeared to contest jurisdiction and District Court Judge had assumed jurisdiction; High Court had granted order of certiorari quashing order ultimately made by District Court Judge; whether jurisdiction of District Court is based on District Court areas or on districts; whether in circumstances of case applicant had by the summons been properly put on notice of the location of proceedings; Courts (Establishment and Constitution) Act, 1961; ss. 32 and 33, Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961; s. 21, Court of Justice Act, 1953; s. 47, Court Officers Act, 1926; District Court Districts and Areas (Amendment) and Variation of Days (No.5) Order, 1998 (SI No. 376 of 1998).

Held: Appeal allowed; order refusing judicial review substituted for order of High Court; exercise of jurisdiction of District Court has always been based on districts and not on District Court areas.

O'Brien v. Judge O'Halloran - Supreme Court: Denham J., McGuinness J., Geoghegan J. - 29/11/2000 - [2001] 1 IR 556

The proceedings concerned the hearing of a summons headed "Listowel area" at the Abbeyfeale District Court. The District Court Judge proceeded to hear the matter despite protests from the applicant's solicitor. Judicial review was granted in the High Court and the respondents appealed against the order. Geoghegan J, delivering judgment in the Supreme Court, held that the District Court Judge had acted within jurisdiction in hearing the matter and allowed the appeal.

1 Judgment delivered by Mr. Justice Geogheghanon the 29th day of November 2000 [NEM diss]

2 This is an appeal from an order of the High Court (Kearns J.) granting by way of judicial review an order of certiorari in respect of an order made by the first-named respondent, dated the 24th of November, 1998 at Abbeyfeale District Court convicting theapplicant/respondent on the appeal of an offence under s. 49(2) and 6 (a) of the Road Traffic Act, 1961as inserted by s. 10 of the Road Traffic Act, 1994.The order was granted in the following circumstances.

3 A summons purporting to be issued under the Courts (No. 3) Act, 1986had been served on the applicant returnable for Abbeyfeale District Court on the 23rd of September, 1998. The summons, however, was headed "Listowel Area". Due to the bad condition of Listowel Courthouse the District Court has not sat in Listowel since the 22nd of July, 1998. The summons was issued on the 8th of September, 1998. From and after the 22nd of July, 1998 the Listowel Court area lists were taken in Abbeyfeale. This was originally done on an informal basis but it was formalised by an order made by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on the 7th of October, 1998 and entitled The District Court Districts and Areas (Amendment) and Variation of Days (No. 5) Order, 1998 (S.I. No. 376 of 1998). That order was made pursuant to s. 26 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1953which was carried over by the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961.To quote the explanatory note on the Statutory Instrument:

"This Order provides for the abolition of the District Court area of Listowel and the amalgamation of the District Electoral Divisions which comprise that area with the District Court area ofAbbeyfeale."

4 For the purposes of this appeal it is not necessary to make further reference to this order other than to Article 6 which does assume considerable importance in the case. That Article reads as follows:

"Business transacted in the District Court which is initiated and not completed before the commencement of this order shallbe continued and completed as if this order had been in force at the time at which such business had been initiated."

5 On the return date on the summons i.e. the 23rd of September, 1998 the applicant's solicitor, Mr. Charles J. O'Connor, from Newmarket, Co. Cork appeared in court with the express purpose of contesting jurisdiction. He made the objection that the summons had issued out of the Listowel District Court Area and in those circumstances it must be brought, heard and determined within the District Court Area of Listowel. The first-named respondent who was the District Court judge rejected his submissions on the grounds that the summons issuing out of the Listowel Court area had clearly stated that it was for hearing at a sitting of Listowel District Court to be held at Abbeyfeale. There is no question but that at that point in time the District Court judge, rightly or wrongly, assumed jurisdiction. But the Garda Superintendent then requested an adjournment because a garda witness had only just returned from sick leave that day and was not ready to proceed with the case. The applicant's solicitor, Mr. O'Connor, objected to the adjournment on the grounds that he had travelled especially to Listowel District Court for the case. The judge, however, considered that she would have to facilitate the guard and she went on to welcome him back to duty. From the time the solicitor objected to the adjournment, the District Judge having assumed jurisdiction, he was participating in the case on behalf of his client and his client was then properly before the Court. It is irrelevant for this purpose whether the hearing of the complaint had technically begun or not. The applicant was properly before the Court for the purpose of being deemed to have notice of the resumed date of hearing and that that hearing would be in Abbeyfeale. Although the case was adjourned until the 24th of October, 1998 it was further adjourned on that date to the 27th of November, 1998 because of the unavailability of a different guard. The applicant's solicitor was again present and hesaysin his affidavit that he "did not consent to theadjournment". By that date the Statutory Instrument referred to above was already made.

6 When the case was taken up on the 24th of November,1998 Mr O'Connor raised the jurisdiction point again but was informed by the respondent that she had already ruled on the matter and that she would hear the case. I think that she was clearly correct in taking the view that she had already made the ruling. The hearing proceeded and the applicant was duly convicted and penalties imposed. Most of the High Court judgment is taken up with the question of jurisdiction of the first-name respondent independently of Statutory Instrument 376 of 1998. The view taken by the learned High Court judge was...