DPP(at the suit of Sergeant Emmett Treacy) v Thomas
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Quirke |
| Judgment Date | 02 October 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] IEHC 284 |
| Docket Number | No. 274 SS/2006 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 02 October 2006 |
[2006] IEHC 284
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT 1857 S2
COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACT 1961 S51
ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S40(1)(1A)
ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S201
ROAD TRAFFIC (AMDT) ACT 1984 S2
ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S107
ROAD TRAFFIC (AMDT) ACT 1984 S3
ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S69(1)
ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S38(1)
ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S102
ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S56(1)
ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S56(3)
PETTY SESSIONS (IRL) ACT 1851 S10(4)
COURTS (NO 3) ACT 1986 S1(7)(A)
ROAD TRAFFIC (AMDT) ACT 1984 S1(4)
DPP v ROCHE & KELLY 1990 2 IR 526
DPP v MCKILLEN 1991 2 IR 508
DPP v GILL 1980 IR 263
Criminal law - Case stated - Whether summonses issued outside time limited - Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act 1851, s. 10(4) - Courts (No. 3) Act 1986, s. 1(7)(a)
This was a case stated on the application of the DPP seeking the opinion of the High Court as to whether the District Judge was correct in law in striking out certain summonses. The District Judge struck out the summonses on the ground that they had been issued outside the time limited by the provisions of s. 10(4) of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act 1851 and s. 1(7)(a) of the Courts (No. 3) Act 1986.
Held by Quirke J. in answering the question asked by the District Judge in the negative that the summonses were lawfully issued pursuant to the provisions of the Act of 1986 and the District Judge had jurisdiction to deal with them.
Reporter: R.W.
This is a case stated pursuant to s. 2 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1857, (as extended by s. 51 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act1961), by Judge Mary Collins, a Judge of the District Court. It has been made on the application of the Director of Public Prosecutions, (hereafter "the DPP") who is dissatisfied with the determination of the learned District Judge as being erroneous in point of law.
The case stated seeks the opinion of the High Court as to whether the learned District Judge was correct in law in striking out certain summonses which alleged the commission by the accused/respondent on 28th August, 2002, of certain offences contrary to the provisions of the Road Traffic Act,1961as amended.
The summonses were issued on foot of an application made on behalf of the DPP in November, 2003. They were struck out by the learned District Judge on the grounds that the application for the summonses was made after the expiry of the time limited in that behalf by statute.
The facts as found by the learned District Judge are set out in the case stated and are as follows:
1. The respondent came before the learned District Judge on the 14th May, 2004, to answer four summonses which had been applied for on the 4th November, 2003, and which had been issued on the 23rd January, 2004. The summons recited the following charges:
(1) That the respondent failed to produce a driving licence on 28th August, 2002, contrary to s. 40(1)(1a) of the Road Traffic Act1961(hereafter "RTA 1691") and s. 201 of the RTA 1961 (as amended by s. 2 of the Road Traffic Amendment Act 1984):
(2) That the respondent gave a false name on the 28th August, 2002, contrary to s. 107 of the RTA 1961 (as amended by s.3 of the Road Traffic Amendment Act1984);
(3) That the respondent failed to produce an insurance certificate on the 28th August, 2002, contrary to s. 69(1) of the RTA 1961 (as amended by s. 2 of the Road Traffic Amendment Act1984);
(4) That the accused was driving without a licence on the 28th August, 2002, contrary to s. 38(1) of the RTA 1961 and s. 102 of the RTA 1961(as amended by s. 2 of the Road Traffic Amendment Act1984);
(5) That respondent was driving without insurance on the 28th August, 2002, contrary to ss. 56( 1) and (3) of the RTA 1961 (as amended by s. 3 of the Road Traffic Amendment Act1984).
2. When the summonses came before the District Court on the 14th May, 2004, an application was made on behalf of the respondent to strike out the summonses on grounds that on the 4th November, 2003, when the application was made for the issue of the summonses 14 months had elapsed since the commission of the alleged offences. It was argued that the summonses had been issued outside the time permitted by statute. The Court (Hamill J.) rejected that application.
3. When that application was renewed before the District Court (Collins J.) on the 3rd February, 2005, Sergeant Treacy on behalf of the D.P.P. explained that on the 28th August, 2002, he had stopped a van and demanded the production of documents from the driver who gave his name as William Scurry with an address at 2 Cloonlara Crescent, Finglas, Dublin 11.
When the documents were not produced in the manner required by law Sergeant Treacy had on the 28th August, 2002, applied successfully for the issue of summonses charging the respondent with the offences which are the subject of this Case Stated. Those summonses were issued on the 10th January, 2003.
4. When he subsequently discovered that the respondent had given him a false name and address Sergeant Treacy satisfied himself that the respondent's correct name was Gerard Thomas and applied on the 28th August, 2002, to re-issue the summonses. He was informed that, by reason of computer difficulties, the summonses could not be re-issued in a name other than that identified on the original summons.
5. On the 24th April, 2003, (the return date for the original summonses), the District Court, on the application of Sergeant Treacy struck out the original summonses.
6. In November, 2003, Sgt Treacy applied successfully for the issue of four fresh summonses in the respondent's correct name. These summonses came before the District Court (Collins J.) on the 14th May, 2004.
Rejecting an application made on behalf of the respondent to strike out the summonses on the grounds of the D.P.P's delay in prosecuting, the learned District Judge nonetheless struck out the summonses on the ground that they had been issued outside the time limited in that behalf by the provisions of s. 10(4) of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act 1851 (hereafter the"Act of 1851") and s. 1(7), (a) of the Courts (No. 3) Act 1986(hereafter "The Act of 1986").
7. On the application of the D.P.P. the learned District Judge sought the opinion of this Court on the following question:
"Was I correct in striking out the summonses which were applied for in November, 2003, in the above circumstances when a complaint was made on the 28th June, 2002, within the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
G.B. v DPP
...on an earlier complaint, which had been made within time: see DPP v. Gill [1980] IR 263, DPP v. McKillen and DPP (Treacy) v. Thomas [2007] 2 ILRM 234. 38 . Counsel submitted that the evidence of D/Gda Nolan had been very clear that when she had applied for the third summons in June 2020, sh......