Crane v DPP & Judge White

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr Justice Michael Peart
• Judgment Date: 26 April 2007
• Neutral Citation: [2007] IEHC 138
• Date: 26 April 2007

CRANE v DPP & JUDGE WHITE

Between:

Brian Crane

Applicant

And

The Director of Public Prosecutions and Judge Michael White

Respondents

[2007] IEHC 138

Record Number: No.142 JR/2007

THE HIGH COURT

CRIMINAL LAW

Indictment

Additional charges - Return for trial on single charge - Additional charges added - Whether addition valid - Whether accused taken by surprise - Criminal Procedure Act 1967 (No 12), s 4M - Criminal Justice Act 1999 (No 10), s 9 - Relief refused (2007/142JR - Peart J - 26/4/2007) [2007] IEHC 138

Crane v DPP

The applicant contended that he was summoned to answer three charges, two under s. 2 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 and one under s. 3. The District Judge sent the applicant forward to the Circuit Criminal Court for trial and when the matter came on for trial the indictment contained three charges under s. 3. The applicant applied for relief on the grounds that the s. 2 charges had been impermissibly converted into indictable s. 3 offences. The DPP submitted that nothing precluded the DPP from adding two other s. 3 charges to the indictment after the return for trial.

Held by Peart J. in refusing the reliefs sought that the addition of the two charges to the indictment was something which was permitted and that no unlawfulness occurred. The facts grounding the charges were contained in the Book of Evidence served on the applicant.

Reporter: R.W.

NON-FATAL OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1997 S3

NON-FATAL OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1997 S2

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1967 S4(m) (AS INSERTED BY CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1999)

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1967 S4(e) (AS INSERTED BY CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1999)

1 Mr Justice Michael Peart delivered on the 26th day of April 2007 :

2 The trial of the applicant on three charges under section 3 of the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act, 1997 ("the 1997 Act") has been adjourned pending the Court's decision on the point raised in these proceedings. I gave my decision refusing the relief sought at the conclusion of the submissions made by Counsel at the hearing on the 27th March 2007, and indicated that I would give my detailed reasons in a written judgment later.

3 The background to this application is that following a fracas in a public house on the 11th June 2003 the applicant was alleged to have assaulted three youths. He was later arrested and questioned by Gardai about the incident and a file was sent to the respondent for a decision on whether to prosecute the applicant could be made. According to the applicant's grounding affidavit he was subsequently summonsed to answer three charges, two of which were under Section 2 of the Act, and one under Section 3 thereof. These matters came before the District Court at Swords, Co. Dublin, and were adjourned from time to time until directions were received from the respondent in relation to the charge under Section 3 of the Act, as to whether this matter was being prosecuted by indictment or whether the respondent was consenting to summary disposal.

4 In the event, the District Judge in due course refused jurisdiction on the s.3 charge and sent the applicant forward to the Circuit Criminal Court for trial.

5 On or around the 6th March 2006 the matter came on for trial, but it appears that there was no Court available to hear the case and the trial was put back to the 6th February 2007. At this stage the applicant and his advisers were of the view that the only charge which the applicant was facing was one charge under s. 3 of the Act, the other two charges, being s. 2 charges, being summary offences, remaining before the District Court for disposal. The applicant's solicitor, A. Derek E. Burke has sworn in his grounding affidavit that at no time prior to the 6th March 2006 had he been made aware that the indictment sought to be introduced before the Court contained in fact three charges under s. 3 of the Act, and neither was he handed a copy of that indictment. He states also that the summonses in respect of the two summary offences under s. 2 of the Act were adjourned...