Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Talbot

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: O'Shea J.
• Judgment Date: 26 April 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] IEDC 13
• Case Outcome: Approved
• Decision Date: 26 April 2018
• Court: http://justis.com/court/2844

THE DISTRICT COURT

DUBLIN METROPOLITAN DISTRICT

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

PROSECUTOR

- AND -

BRENDAN TALBOT

ACCUSED

Determination delivered by Judge Brian O’Shea at Dublin District Court on the 26th

day of April 2018

1.This is a preliminary application by the accused seeking a determination that the court

has no jurisdiction to embark on the hearing of a criminal charge as the matter is not

properly before the court.

2.The issue in this case is whether criminal proceedings issued by way of the charge sheet

procedure, that charge sheet having been subsequently struck out, can be re-entered by

way of an application for a summons pursuant to the Courts (No.3) Act 1986 in

circumstances where more than six months has passed between the date of the alleged

offence and the application for the said summons.

3.It is an agreed fact that the evidence of the arrest, charge and caution in respect of the

charge sheet procedure was given before a judge of the District Court within six months

of the date of the alleged offence.

4.The charge sheet was struck out more than six months from the date of the alleged

offence. The strike out was for procedural reasons rather than the complaint being

expressly withdrawn. The prosecutor then sought to revive the proceedings by way of

application for a summons under the 1986 Act purportedly based on the original

complaint.

5.It is an agreed fact that the statement and particulars of the alleged offence are the same

in both the charge sheet and the summons.

6.The accused challenges this process on the basis that: (1) once the charge sheet was

struck out the complaint was also struck out and so an application for a summons could

not be based on a struck out complaint; (2) the summons was not applied for within the

statutory period, and (3) that the summons procedure under the 1986 Act provides for

the “commencement” of proceedings and not the re-entry thereof.

7.The prosecutor argues that once the original complaint was made within six months of the

alleged offence the matter is properly before the court and the summons and charge

sheet procedures are interchangeable.

8.Legal submissions were set out on behalf of the accused by way of reference to a text

book authored by Hughes and Hughes relating to criminal procedure in the District Court.

A short paragraph and number of additional sentences were read to the court as authority

to support the accused’s argument. For reasons that will become apparent later in this