Coates v Judge O'Donnell

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Geoghegan
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1997
• Neutral Citation: [1996] IEHC 35
• Docket Number: [1996 No. 93 J.R.],No. 93 J.R./1996
• Court: High Court
• Date: 01 January 1997

COATES v. O'DONNELL & DPP

JUDICIAL REVIEW

BETWEEN

SHANE COATES

APPLICANT

AND

JUDGE AIDAN O"DONNELL AND THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLICPROSECUTIONS

RESPONDENTS

[1996] IEHC 35

No. 93 J.R./1996

THE HIGH COURT

Synopsis:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Order of prohibition sought - s.79 Courts of Justice Act, 1924 - applicant brought before District Court not in area where crimes had been committed or where applicant resided - whether District Judge had jurisdiction - whether defect can be rectified by amendment to s.79 effected by s.41(4) Courts and Court Officers Act, 1995 - Held: Order granted - (High Court: Geoghegan J. - 26/11/1996) [1997] 1 IR 417

|Coates v. Judge O'Donnell & DPP|

Citations:

COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT 1924 S79

COURTS & COURT OFFICERS ACT 1995 S41

COURTS & COURT OFFICERS ACT 1995 S41(2)

COURTS & COURT OFFICERS ACT 1995 S41(3)

COURTS & COURT OFFICERS ACT 1995 S41(4)

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Geoghegandelivered the 26th day of November. 1996.

2 This is an application brought pursuant to leave granted by Miss Justice Laffoy on the 11th March, 1996 for an Order of Prohibition preventing the First named Respondent from hearing or in any other way dealing with the offences as set out on Blanchardstown Charge Sheets 651/95 and652/95.

3 Under Section 79 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, the jurisdiction vested in the District Court in criminal cases is to be exercised by a Judge for the time being assigned to the District wherein the crime has been committed or the accused has been arrested or resides. In this case the Applicant was arrested and brought before Judge Aidan O"Donnell, sitting in Mullingar District Court. Mullingar was not in either the District Court area or District in which the alleged crimes in that particular Charge Sheet had been committed orinwhich the Applicant had been arrested or resided. It was therefore submitted to the District Judge that he had no jurisdiction to deal with the case. The Judge did not adjudicate on this argument but adjourned the case to the 22nd March, 1996. The proceedings have been stayed since leave was granted by the High Court to bring these Judicial Review proceedings. Counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr. Feichin McDonagh, argues that any Order of Prohibition would be premature in that in so far as there was any defect, the position can be rectified by the amendment to Section 79 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924effected by Section 41 of the Courts and Court Officers Act, 1995which is now in force but which was not in force when the case was originally before the District Judge. Section 41 of the 1995 Act adds four new subsections to Section 79 of the 1924 Act. I think it important to cite in full the first three of these which read as follows:-

4 2 "(2) On the coming into operation of Section 41 of the Courts and Court Officers Act, 1995, where a Judge for the time being assigned to a District Court District is unavailable, any Judge of the District Court may exercise jurisdiction, subject to subsection (3) of this section, in respect of such District in a criminal case in any place in the State.

5 (3) A Judge of the District Court exercising jurisdiction under subsection (2) of this section shall not have jurisdiction to conduct a preliminary examination under the provisions of the Criminal...