DPP(at the suit of Garda Kieran D Murphy) v Gregg(a minor)
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice John MacMenamin |
| Judgment Date | 13 January 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] IEHC 181 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | No. 1169 SS/2005 |
| Date | 13 January 2006 |
[2006] IEHC 181
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACT 1961 S52
CRIMINAL JUSTICE (THEFT & FRAUD) OFFENCES ACT 2001 S14
NON FATAL OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1997 S3
CHILDREN ACT 2001 S75
DPP v TIMMONS 2004 4 IR 545 2004/17/3904
PETTY SESSIONS (IRL) ACT 1851 S10(4)
CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1951 S2
CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1951 S7
CRIMINAL JUSTICE (THEFT & FRAUD) OFFENCES ACT 2001 SCH I
S v DPP & CONNELLAN UNREP SUPREME 19.12.2000 2000/16/6203
DPP v LOGAN 1994 2 ILRM 229
CRIMINAL JUSTICE (THEFT & FRAUD) OFFENCES ACT 2001 S53
CHILDREN ACT 2001 S75(1)
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ACT 1957 S9
CRIMINAL JUSTICE (THEFT & FRAUD) OFFENCES ACT 2001 S53(1)
CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1951 S2(1)
CRIMINAL JUSTICE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1997 S8
CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1951 S2(2)
OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1861 S42
CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1951 S11
OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1861 S47
MCGRAIL v RUANE 1989 ILRM 498
O'CONNOR, AG v O'REILLY UNREP 29.11.76 1976/8/1187
TDI METRO LTD v DELAP (No2) 2000 4 IR 520 2001 1 ILRM 338
TRADING STAMP ACT 1980 S14
POSTAL & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES ACT 1983 S5
CHILDCARE ACT 1991 S71
NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE ACT 2000 S37(5)
EQUAL STATUS ACT 2000 S44(4)
ELECTRONIC COMMERCE ACT 2002 S6(2)
WALSH CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 642
DPP v BJN CONSTRUCTION UNREP PEART 25.6.2003 2003/14/2954
ROBINSON v JUDGE O'DONNELL & DPP UNREP HANNA 20.7.2005 2005/52/11023 2005 IEHC 257
CRIMINAL LAW
Indictable offence
Summary offence - Indictable offence capable of being tried summarily - Time limit- Whether indictable offence tried summarily subject to prescribed time limit for prosecuting summary offences - TDI Metro Ltd v Delap (No 2) [2000] 4 IR 520 and S vDPP (Unrep, SC, 19/12/2000) applied - DPP (O'Brien) v Timmons [2004] IEHC 423, [2004] 4 IR 545 and DPP v BJN Construction Ltd (Unrep, Peart J, 25/6/2003)followed - DPP v Logan [1994] 3 IR 254 and Robinson v O'Donnell [2005] IEHC 257(Unrep, Hanna J, 20/7/2005) distinguished -Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act 1851 (14 & 15Vict, c 93), s 10(4) - Offences Against the Person Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Vict, c 100), ss 42and 47 - Criminal Justice Act 1951 (No 2), ss2, 7 and 11 - Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961 (No 39), s 52 -Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions)Act 1997 (No 4), s 8 - Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 (No 26), s 3 - Children Act 2001 (No 24), s 75 - Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001(No 50), ss 14 and 53 - Held Petty Sessions Act did not apply (2005/1169SS -MacMenamin J - 13/1/2006) [2006] IEHC 181 DPP (Murphy) v G(G)
The matter came before the court by way of case stated from District Judge Mary Collins, who sought the determination of the High Court on the issue of whether the six month time limit for initiating criminal proceedings provided for in S.10(4) of the Act of 1851, applied to a complaint in respect of an indictable offence contrary to S..14 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001, which was fit to be tried summarily.
Held by MacMenamin J. in answering the question in the negative: That the offence in this case stated, being an offence under S.14 of the 2001 Act, was an indictable offence, capable of being tried summarily. However, at all times the offence retained its character and classification as an indictable offence and accordingly the six month time limit did not apply.
DPP (at the suit of Garda Eamon O’Brien) v. John Timmons 21/12/04 Followed.
Reporter: L.O’S
1. This is a case stated by District Judge Mary Collins the Judge of the District Court assigned to the Dublin Metropolitan District, sitting at the Children's Court in Smithfield in the County and City of Dublin pursuant to the provisions of s. 52 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961, for the determination of the High Court.
2. The defendant herein appeared before the Children's Court (District Court No. 55) Smithfield on 24th February, 2005 in respect of Shankhill Charge Sheet No. 357171 which alleged an offence contrary to s. 14 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001, and Shankhill Charge Sheet No. 357172 which alleged an offence contrary to s. 3 of the Non Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997.
Evidence of arrest charge and caution was given in respect of the alleged offences set out in the aforementioned charge sheets before the presiding judge, District Judge Hugh O'Donnell. It was indicated by the prosecution that the Director of Public Prosecutions was consenting to summary disposal of the alleged offences, but that it was for the presiding District Judge, pursuant to s. 75 of the Children Act2001, to consider whether or not to accept jurisdiction. Having considered a summary of the alleged facts, District Judge O'Donnell accepted jurisdiction. The defendant was then admitted to bail and the proceedings were remanded to the 23rd May, 2005.
3. On that date the defendant appeared before the Childrens Court, District Judge Cormac Dunne presiding. It was indicated by Ms. Sarah Molloy Solicitor for the defendant that the defendant wished to raise legal argument in respect of the charges before the court. Upon instructions Ms. Molloy consented to remand on 3rd May, 2005 to allow the chief prosecution solicitor to take instructions and to be present.
4. On 3rd May, 2005 the accused elected for summary disposal and, legal argument proceeded before District Judge Collins. Prior to the same commencing an application to withdraw Charge Sheet No. 357172 was made by Mr. Ronan O'Neill solicitor appearing on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions. District Judge Collins acceded to this application.
5. Ms. Molloy applied for the proceedings to be assessed on the basis that the complaint on which the extant summons was brought had been initiated outside of the six month time limit laid down for offences of this category. She sought to distinguish the judgment of Macken J. in the case of the Director of Public Prosecutions (at the suit of Garda Eamonn O'Brien) v. John Timmons dated 21st December, 2004. The solicitor for the defendant submitted that in Timmons case the defence did not contest the prosecution's appeal by way of case stated in the High Court because the District Court had dismissed the case before either the District Judge had accepted jurisdiction, or the accused had been put on his election. Ms. Molloy relied on the provisions of s. 10 (4) of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act 1851; the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1951 and in particular sections 2, 7 and schedule 1 thereof, the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001; the terms of the Criminal Justice Bill 2004, in particular s. 24 and the explanatory memorandum thereof; and the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of S. v. The Director of Public Prosecutions and Judge Michael Connellan (Unreported judgment of Ms. Justice Catherine McGuiness delivered 19th December, 2003) and Director of Public Prosecutions v. Logan [1994] 2 ILRM 229. In the event that the learned District Judge refused the defendant's application she was asked by Ms. Molloy to consider referring a case to the High Court for its opinion on the questions of law arising.
6. Mr. Ronan O'Neill Solicitor on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions resisted the defendants application, his submissions being based primarily on the then unreported judgment of Macken J. in the case of The Director of Public Prosecutions (at the suit of Garda Eamonn O'Brien) v. John Timmons dated 21st December, 2004 (now reported or [2004] 4 I.R. at p. 545). Mr. O'Neill submitted that s. 53 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud) Act had in effect created a new category of indictable offence, that is one different to a scheduled offence. Having heard submissions the learned District Judge put the proceedings back to 5th May, 2005 to allow her further time to consider the matter.
7. On 5th May, 2005 the learned District Judge indicated that she was refusing the defence application to have Shankhill Charge Sheet No. 357171 dismissed on the grounds that the complaint was “time barred“. She did so on the basis that she felt bound by the judgment of the High Court as expressed in The Director of Public Prosecutions (at the suit of Garda Eamonn O'Brien) v. John Timmons. While submissions were made by Mr. O'Neill on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions that there was no need for a further consultative case stated, the learned District Justice acceded to the defence application for such a case to be stated after considering the particular circumstances of the instant case. The question for the determination of this court as stated in the case stated is as follows
“Does the six month time limit for the initiation of proceedings set down in s. 10(4) of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act 1851 apply to a complaint in respect of an indictable offence contrary to the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act2001 which is fit to be tried summarily, the conditions precedent for such summary trial in s. 53 of said Act having been complied with, and where said offences are not scheduled offences within the meaning of s. 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1951? ”
8. The issue of the application of the six month time limit prescribed under s. 10(4) of the Petty Sessions Act 1851 to indictable offences triable in the District Court has been the subject matter of some considerable discussion in earlier authorities. In order to put the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DPP v G (G)(A Minor)
...January, 2006, and order dated the 23rd February, 2006, the High Court (MacMenamin J.) answered the question posed in the negative (see [2006] IEHC 181). The accused appealed to the Supreme Court by notice of appeal dated the 13th March, 2006. The appeal was heard before the Supreme Court (......