DPP (prosecutor/respondent) v Ring (accused/applicants)
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Hedigan |
| Judgment Date | 19 May 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] IEHC 186 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 19 May 2010 |
[2010] IEHC 186
THE HIGH COURT
AND
COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACT 1961 S52(1)
CRIMINAL JUSTICE (PUBLIC ORDER) ACT 1994 S15
CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1984 S4
CRIMINAL JUSTICE (PUBLIC ORDER) ACT 1994 S15(1)
PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1986 S2 (UK)
R v MAHROOF 1989 88 CR APP R 317
R v FLEMING & ROBINSON 1989 CRIM LR 658
R v LEMON 2002 AER (D) 96
R v WORTON 1990 154 JP 201 1990 CRIM LR 124
R v MORRIS UNREP 7.3.2005 2005 EWCA CRIM 609
PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1986 S2(1) (UK)
PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1986 S4 (UK)
PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1986 S3 (UK)
SMITH & HOGAN CRIMINAL LAW 12ED 2008 1037
CRIMINAL LAW
Violent disorder
Two accused - Three people necessary for offence of violent order to be established - Summons withdrawn in respect of one accused for âÇÿtechnical reasons' - Whether possible to convict remaining two accused of violent disorder - Whether court had jurisdiction to convict applicants where two rather than three people eventually prosecuted - R v Mahroof (1988) 88 Cr App Rep 317, R v Worton (1989) 154 JP 201, [1990] Crim LR 124, R v Lemon [2002] All ER (D) 96 (Jun) and R v Morris [2005] EWCA Crim 609 [2005] All ER (D) 90 (Mar) followed - Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 (No 2) s 15 - Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961 (No 39) s 52 -Question answered (2010/11SS - Hedigan J - 19/5/2010) [2010] IEHC 186
DPP v Ring
Facts section 15 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 provides, inter alia, that "(1) Where— (a) three or more persons who are present together at any place…use or threaten to use unlawful violence, and (b) the conduct of those persons, taken together, is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at that place to fear for his or another person's safety, then, each of the persons using or threatening to use unlawful violence shall be guilty of the offence of violent disorder. (2) For the purposes of this section…it shall be immaterial whether or not the three or more persons use or threaten to use unlawful violence simultaneously". The applicant applied to have the summonses dismissed on the basis that the word "each" in the section denoted that at least three people ought to have been charged with the offence. The District Judge stated a case to the High Court on the following question: "where the offence alleged requires three or more persons to be present in order to be guilty of the said offence in circumstances where only two persons were prosecuted is the Court entitled to convict?" The prosecution submitted that, on its true construction, s.15(1) of the Act of 1994 did not require that at least two other persons be convicted of an offence of violent disorder before any single defendant could be convicted.
Held by Mr Justice Hedigan in answering the case stated as follows: that if the District Judge was satisfied on the evidence that the two applicants together with the minor were involved in violent disorder then notwithstanding the withdrawal of the charge against the minor she may convict either or both of the two.
Reporter: P.C.
JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Hedigandelivered on the 19th of May 2010
1. These proceedings are brought by way of a consultative case stated pursuant to s. 52(1) of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961 by Judge Mary Devins of the District Court assigned to District Number three (the District Court area of Castlebar) arising out of the prosecution of the applicants on a charge of violent disorder at Castlebar Courthouse on the 4 th March, 2009.
2. The case stated, dated the 26 th November, 2009, was outlined by District Judge Devins in the following terms:-
2 "1. At a sitting of the District Court held at District Court No. 3 in the town of Castlebar in the County of Mayo on the 4 th day of March, 2009 the Applicants and a third Accused, Adrian Ring, appeared before me on one summons each charged with the one offence as follows:
a a. That you, on the 08-Jun-2008 at Tesco Carpark, Knockcrockery, Castlebar, Co. Mayo in said District Court Area of Castlebar, committed violent disorder in that you (Keith Ring) with other persons, namely Shannon Keoghane and Adrian Ring present together, used or threatened to use unlawful violence and such conduct, taken together, was such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at said place to fear for his or another person's safety contrary to section 15 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994.'
b b. That you, on the 08-Jun-2008 at Tesco Carpark, Knockcrockery, Castlebar, Co. Mayo in said District Court Area of Castlebar, committed violent disorder in that you (Shannon Keoghane) with other persons, namely Adrian Ring and Keith Ring present together, used or threatened to use unlawful violence and such conduct, taken together, was such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at said place to fear for his or another person's safety contrary to section 15 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994.
c c. That you, on the 08-Jun-2008 at Tesco Carpark, Knockcrockery, Castlebar, Co. Mayo in said District Court Area of Castlebar, committed violent disorder in that you (Adrian Ring) with other persons, namely Shannon Keoghanee [sic.] and Keith Ring present together, used or threatened to use unlawful violence and such conduct, taken together, used or threatened to use unlawful violence and such conduct, taken together, was such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at said place to fear for his or another person's safety contrary to section 15 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994."
d d. The summonses, which form part of this case stated, are included at Appendix I.
2. On the 4 th day of March 2009, the within matter having come before my court, the prosecution withdrew the third summons preferred against Adrian Ring, the third accused after being requested to do so by the third accused as the matter was not properly before the Court. The said third accused, Adrian Ring, was a minor and the summons preferred against him was defective as his mother and/or father and/or guardian ought to have also been but were not summonsed in the within matter.
3. At the said hearing and the subsequent hearing, the Applicants and Adrian Ring were represented by Aidan Crowley, Solicitor of Egan, Daughter & Co., Solicitors, Castlebar in the County of Mayo. The Prosecutor/Respondent was represented by Superintendent William Keavney.
4. On the 20 th day of May 2009, the date to which the matter was adjourned, after hearing the evidence adduced by and behalf of the Respondent and of the Applicants, the undersigned being one of the Judges of the District Court assigned to the said District and sitting as a Court of Summary Jurisdiction at the Courthouse, Castlebar, County Mayo, and having neither proceeded to a final adjudication of the said complaints nor decided certain questions of law arising herein, do hereby refer such questions of law to the High Court for determination.
5. I adjourned the said complaints to the 17 th day of June 2009 when I directed that a consultative case be stated to the High Court.
6. I further adjourned the said complaints to the day of the sitting of the District Court next after the expiration of fourteen days from the day upon which the decision of the High Court shall be given.
7. Wherefore, I, the Judge aforesaid, in pursuance of the Statutes in such case made and provided do hereby state and sign the following case for the opinion of the High Court.
The following evidence was given in the within matter on the 20 th May 2009 and in addition 1, the presiding Judge, viewed CCTV footage of this incident from which it was apparent that there were more than two persons involved in this dispute:-
1. Mr P.J. Scahill of Boffin Street, The Quay, Westport, County Mayo stated as follows:-
a a. He was a security guard in Tesco, Castlebar, County Mayo, working on the 7 th day of June 2008. At approximately 3.30 am a group of individuals approached Tesco. He observed an individual purchase goods and then proceeded to view the group outside the shop on camera. He observed a black gentleman join the group and a fight broke out between the parties. He went outside the shop and proceeded to bring the black gentleman into the shop premises in order to diffuse the said fight. He spoke to the group of individuals and one of the group accused him of assaulting him. He claims that suddenly he was hit by what he believed to be a phone charger over the left eye. The group gathered around him and proceeded to kick him whilst was on the ground - he got up off the ground and hit two of the group members and walked towards the shop. He was hit again on the back of the head with the said phone charger. The group stood outside the shop and shouted abuse at him and further attempted to damage sensors around the shop and did assault another person who was exiting the premises. He then closed the shutters on the said premises. He gave evidence of the injuries allegedly sustained by him as a result of the alleged assaults.
2. Garda Michelle Patricia Conroy, of Castlebar Garda Station, Castlebar, County Mayo stated as follows:-
a a. She was on duty on June 8 th 2008 when she received a call to attend the Tesco premises in the town. She attended same and found Mr. Scahill in a distressed and bloody state. She spoke with Mr. Scahill who alleged he was hit over the left eye by a small guy wearing a hoodie and hit again by a tall guy. Mr. Scahill made a statement. She then subsequently proceeded to...
To continue reading
Request your trial