Cumann Lúthchleas Gael Teo.v Windle
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | FINLAY C.J. |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1994 |
| Neutral Citation | 1993 WJSC-SC 1747 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Docket Number | [S.C. No. 262 of 1992] |
| Date | 01 January 1994 |
1993 WJSC-SC 1747
THE SUPREME COURT
Finlay C.J.
O'Flaherty J.
Egan J.
Blayney J.
Denham J.
BETWEEN
and
and
Citations:
FIRE SERVICES ACT 1981 S28(3)
FIRE SAFETY IN PLACES OF ASSEMBLY (EASE OF ESCAPE) REG 1985 SI 249/1985 REG 4(i)
FIRE SAFETY IN PLACES OF ASSEMBLY (EASE OF ESCAPE) REG 1985 SI 249/1985 REG 4(ii)
FIRE SERVICES ACT 1981 S4
FIRE SERVICES ACT 1981 S5
FIRE SERVICES ACT 1981 S37
FIRE SERVICES ACT 1981 S5(1)
FIRE SERVICES ACT 1981 S6
FIRE SERVICES ACT 1981 S5(2)
FIRE SERVICES ACT 1981 S9
FIRE SERVICES ACT 1981 PART III
FIRE SERVICES ACT 1981 S18(2)
FIRE SERVICES ACT 1981 S20
FIRE SERVICES ACT 1981 S20(1)
FIRE SERVICES ACT 1981 S20(2)
FIRE SERVICES ACT 1981 S20(3)
FIRE SERVICES ACT 1981 S16
FIRE SERVICES ACT 1981 S16(4)
FIRE SERVICES ACT 1981 S22
FIRE SERVICES ACT 1981 S37(1)
FIRE SERVICES ACT 1981 S37(3)
FIRE SAFETY IN PLACES OF ASSEMBLY (EASE OF ESCAPE) REGS 1985 SI 249/1985 REG 4
FIRE SERVICES ACT 1981 S5(3)
FIRE SERVICES ACT 1981 S22(6)
FIRE SERVICES ACT 1981 S30
FIRE SERVICES ACT 1981 S31
KENEALY V O'KEEFFE 1901 2 IR 39
ENNIS, STATE V FARRELL 1966 IR 107
PEOPLE V RODDY 1977 IR 177
FERRIS, R V LONDONDERRY JUSTICES 1903 2 IR 747
ST LEONARDS SHOREDITCH GUARDIANS V FRANKLIN 1878 3 CPD 377
INTERPRETATION ACT 1937 S11(c)
FIRE SERVICES ACT 1981 PART IV
FIRE SERVICES ACT 1981 S37
FIRE SERVICES ACT 1981 S6(1)
CONSTITUTION ART 30.3
FIRE SAFETY IN PLACES OF ASSEMBLY (EASE OF ESCAPE) REGS 1985 SI 249/1985 REG 3
VAGRANCY (IRL) ACT 1847
COAL & DUTIES ACT 1831 1 & 2 WILL IV C16
Synopsis:
COMMON INFORMER
Prosecution
Common law - Corporation - Power - Absence - Statutory power limited to summary proceedings - Prosecution by fire authority of indictable offence - (269/92 - Supreme Court - 23/6/93)
|Cumann Lutchleas Gael Teo. v. Windle|
DISTRICT COURT
Offence
Trial - Mode - Discretion - Exercise - Return for trial on in dictment - Charge of faulty fire precautions at sports stadium - Facts alleged justified opinion that offence not a minor one fit to be tried summarily - (269/92 - Supreme Court - 23/6/93)
|Cumann Luthchleas Gael Teo. v. Windle|
CRIMINAL LAW
Trial
Mode - District Court - Discretion - Exercise - Return for trial on indictment - Whether offence charged indictable - Charge that defendant contravened section which empowered Minister to make regulations specifying precautions to be taken in premises to which public had access - Prosecution by fire authority - Whether judge erred in forming opinion that offence charged was not a minor one - Fire Safety in Places of Assembly (Ease of Escape) Regulations, 1985 (S.I. No. 249), article 4 - Fire Services Act, 1981, ss. 5, 6 - (269/92 - Supreme Court - 23/6/93)
|Cumann Luthchleas Gael Teo. v. Windle|
JUDGMENT delivered on the 22nd day of June 1993 by FINLAY C.J. [NEMDISS]
This is an appeal brought by the Applicant against an order and judgment made and delivered by O'Hanlon J. in the High Court on the 3rd day of July 1992 refusing its application for judicial review.
The proceedings arise out of a prosecution brought by the Notice Party/Respondent (the Corporation) against the Applicant and heard by the first named Respondent as judge of the District Court. The prosecution was for offences alleged to have been committed by the Applicant contrary to the provisions of the Fire Services Act 1981in respect to its occupation and management of Croke Park.
The summons was in the following form:
"Whereas a complaint has been made to me by the complainant, being the fire authority for the County Borough of Dublin, that you did on the 4th September 1988 at Croke Park at Jones's Road situate in the County Borough of Dublin within the said district, being the person having control over the said premises at Croke Park, being a stadium and a place of assembly, fail to ensure"
(i) that all escape routes were kept unobstructed and immediately available for use, and
(ii) that all doors and gates were kept secured in such a manner that they could easily and immediately be opened by persons in the said place of assembly.
In breach of regulation 4(i) and (ii) of the Fire, Safety in Places of Assembly (Ease of Escape) Regulation 1985, as provided under section 37 and contrary to sections 4 and 5 of the Fire Services Act 1981."
The occasion in respect of which these charges were brought was an All-Ireland hurling final which would attract a capacity crowd to Croke Park.
Upon the matter eventually coming before the Respondent in the Dublin Metropolitan District Court he heard the submissions of counsel, opening to him the facts of the case and setting out the allegations against the Defendant, and announced his conclusion that the offences charged were indictable offences, were not minor offences and that he was not satisfied to try them summarily. He therefore directed the service of a book of evidence on the Defendant. This was duly complied with and upon consideration of the book of evidence and upon hearing further submissions from counsel the learned judge of the District Court by order dated the 29th day of June 1990 sent the Applicant forward for trial to the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court on the charge set out at paragraph (i) of the said summons, but refused informations in relation to the charge set out at paragraph (ii) of the said summons.
By order of the High Court dated the 14th day of January 1991 made by Morris J., the Applicant was given liberty to apply for an order of certiorari of the said order returning it for trial by way of application for judicial review, upon the following grounds:
2 "1. That the offence numbered 1, referred to in the order of the 29th June 1990, was not an indictable offence.
2. That the said offence the subject matter of the said order was a summary offence only, and by virtue of the provisions of section 4 and section 5(1) of the Act of 1981 was charged and brought by way of summary proceedings by the said fire authority pursuant to section 6 of the Act of 1981.
3. That the summons dated the 21st July 1981 issued and served by the Corporation related only to a complaint of a summary offence.
4. That the Respondent misdirected himself in law in holding that it was an indictable offence.
5. That he misdirected himself in law in treating the offence as one to which section 5(2) of the Act of 1981 applied.
6. That the Respondent failed or refused to consider any facts or that there were no facts placed before him which he could consider and from which he would be entitled to form an opinion that the said offence did not constitute a minor offence fit to be tried summarily.
7. That in the premises the Respondent acted without jurisdiction and in excess of jurisdiction and failed to apply or acted contrary to the principles of natural justice."
"Any person who contravenes (by act or omission) any requirement of Part III of this Act or of any regulation under this Act or of any notice to which this Act applies shall be guilty of an offence."
2 "(1) A person guilty of an offence under this Act (other than an offence to which subsection (2) applies) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500 or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both the fine and the imprisonment.
(2) A person guilty of an offence by reason of a contravention of section 18(2), 20 or 37 shall be liable on conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding £10,000 or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both the fine and the imprisonment.
(3) A justice of the District Court shall have jurisdiction to try summarily an offence to which subsection (2) relates if-
(a) the justice is of opinion that the facts proved or alleged against a defendant charged with such an offence constitute a minor offence fit to be tried summarily,
(b) the Director of Public Prosecutions consents, and
(c) the defendant (on being informed by the justice of his right to be tried by a jury) does not object to being tried summarily
3 and, upon conviction under this subsection the defendant shall be liable to a fine not exceeding£500 or at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both the fine and the imprisonment."
"(1) Summary proceedings for an offence to which section 5(1) applies may be brought and prosecuted by the fire authority for the functional area in which the offence is alleged to have been committed or by any other person."
"(1) Each of the following local authorities shall be a fire authority for the purposes of this Act - (b) the corporation of a county borough,"
Part III of the Act contains sections 18 to 30, inclusive.
2 "(1) This section applies to premises or any part thereof put to any of the following uses.
(c) use for purposes of entertainment, recreation or instruction or for the purpose of any club, society or association;
(e) use for any purpose involving access to the premises by members of the public, whether on payment or otherwise;
(2) It shall be the duty of every person having control over premises to which this section applies to take all reasonable measures to guard against the outbreak of fire on such premises, and to ensure as far as is reasonably practicable the safety of persons on the premises in the event of an outbreak of fire."
"(1) A fire authority may serve on the owner...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dillon v Judge McHugh & DPP
...be a minor offence, it is not at all clear on what basis this is stated. While the case of Cumann Luthchleas Gael Teo. v. Judge Windle [1994] 1 I.R. 525 is cited as supporting this latter contention by one of the authors, a consideration of that case makes it clear that, although there were......
-
Kelly and Another v District Judge Ann Ryan
...decision to issue summons unreasonable - Attorney General (McDonnell) v Higgins [1964] IR 374; Cumann Lúthchleas Gael Teo v Judge Windle [1994] 1 IR 525; Minister for Industry and Commerce v Hales [1967] IR 50; R v The Bow Street Magistrates, ex parte Kazuhiro Sakashita (Unrep, Queen's Ben......
-
Gormley v Judge Smyth & DPP
...that a retrial on indictment would be oppressive. Cases mentioned in this report:- Cumann Lúthchleas Gael Teo. v. Judge Windle [1994] 1 I.R. 525. Director of Public Prosecutions (Murphy) v. G.G. (a minor)[2009] IESC 17, [2009] 3 I.R. 410. Director of Public Prosecutions v. Doyle [1994] 2 I.......
-
TDI Metro Ltd v Fingal County Council
...construec a number of statutory provisions and placed emphasis on the judgment of this Court in Cumann luthchleas Gael v Windle (1994) 1 IR 525. 5The notice Party appealed to this Court from the judgment and Order of the High Court by notice of appeal dated the 7th September THE PRESENT ISS......