DPP v Bradley

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Meenan
• Judgment Date: 30 July 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] IEHC 466
• Docket Number: [2020 No. 185 SS]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 30 July 2020

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 2 OF THE SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT, 1857 AS EXTENDED BY SECTION 51 OF THE COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACT, 1961

BETWEEN

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

APPELLANT

AND

MARESSA BRADLEY

RESPONDENT

[2020] IEHC 466

Meenan J.

[2020 No. 185 SS]

THE HIGH COURT

Case stated – Point of law – Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 – Plaintiff seeking the opinion of the High Court – Whether the District Judge was correct in holding that proof of a valid arrest is required as an essential ingredient in a prosecution for offences contrary to ss. 6 and 8 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994

Facts: This was a case stated by the President of the District Court, pursuant to s. 2 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1857 as extended by s. 51 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961 and the Rules of the District Court 1997, as amended on the application in writing by the appellant, the Prosecutor in the District Court, being dissatisfied with the determination of the District Court on the matter as being erroneous in point of law. The appellant appealed by way of case stated and sought the opinion of the High Court on the following questions: (1) Was the District Judge correct in holding that proof of a valid arrest is required as an essential ingredient in a prosecution for offences contrary to ss. 6 and 8 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994? (2) Was the District Judge correct in holding that the prosecution in this case was required to adduce evidence stating the power of arrest? (3) Was the District Judge correct in law in dismissing the case against the respondent, Ms Bradley, on this basis?

Held by the Court that it was the case, as was found by the District Judge, that all of the evidence relevant to the commission of the offences charged related to what happened before the arrest, and no relevant evidence in respect of the offences related to what happened after the arrest. In the Court’s view, this finding engaged the general rule as stated in DPP (Ivers) v Murphy [1999] 1 I.R. 98 that “the jurisdiction of the District Court to embark on any criminal proceeding is not affected by the fact, if it be the fact, that the accused person has been brought before the court by an illegal process”. The Court noted that such a general rule has clear limitations (State (Trimbole) v The Governor of Mountjoy Prison [1985] I.R. 550). The Court was of the view that the decision in DPP v Gaffney [1987] I.R. 173 was not of assistance to the respondent. The Court noted that, in that case, the fact that the accused was arrested whilst the Garda inspector was, in fact, trespassing was clearly material; in that case, the arrest was effected in circumstances where the accused’s Constitutional right to the inviolability of his dwelling was breached. The Court found that these were not the circumstances in this case. The Court noted that the District Judge found, as a fact, that the arresting Garda informed the respondent “that she was being arrested for failure to comply with the direction issued under s. 8 of the Act of 1994”. The Court found that this brought the matter within the judgment in Mulligan v DPP (Garda Ryan) [2009] 1 I.R. 794. The Court held that the arresting Garda was not obliged to inform the respondent that she was being arrested under the provisions of s. 24 of the 1994 Act; by informing the respondent that she was being arrested for failure to comply with a direction issued under s. 8 of the 1994 Act brought the arrest firmly within the propositions stated in Christie v Leachinsky [1947] A.C. 573, cited with approval in the Supreme Court (The People v Walsh [1980] I.R. 294) subsequently.

The Court held that, by reason of the foregoing, in his opinion, the answers to the questions posed by the District Judge are as follows: (1) No. (2) No. (3) No.

Case stated.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Meenan delivered on the 30th day of July, 2020

Introduction

1 This is a case stated by Judge Colin Daly, President of the District Court, pursuant to s. 2 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1857 as extended by s. 51 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961 and the Rules of the District Court 1997, as amended on the application in writing by the appellant (the Prosecutor in the District Court) being dissatisfied with the determination of the District Court on the matter as being erroneous in point of law.

2 The matter in question was the prosecution of the respondent on a charge that the respondent: -

“On the 01/09/2019 at South Circular Road, Dublin 8, a public place, in the said District Court area of Dublin Metropolitan District, did use or engage in threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or being reckless as to whether a breach of the peace might have been occasioned. Contrary to section 6 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, 1994 [the Act of 1994] as amended by section 22 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 2008.”

3 The President of the District Court found as follows: -

(a) On 1 September 2019, Garda O'Reilly and Garda Conor Kelly received a call to attend at South Circular Road, Dublin 8. Upon arrival at the scene, Garda O'Reilly and her colleagues met a female who is now known to them as being the respondent. The respondent was outside her property and verbally shouting at her former partner so much as to cause a breach of the peace. The respondent began telling the Gardaí to “ F-off” and also to “do your F- jobs” and that the Gardaí were “not to be annoying me”. Garda O'Reilly asked the respondent to refrain from swearing, at which point the respondent told her to “F- off”. Members of the public were present;

(b) Garda O'Reilly directed the accused to leave the area under s. 8 of the Act of 1994. She outlined the consequences of failure to comply with the direction. The accused failed to comply with this direction and was abusive to Gardaí. The District Judge was satisfied that the direction issued was lawful and that no issue arises in respect of the direction for the purposes of this case stated; and

(c) The accused told Garda O'Reilly to “F- off” on numerous occasions and she also stated “ye are all useless P-”. Garda O'Reilly arrested the accused at 19:45 on the South Circular Road, Dublin 8 and informed her that she was being arrested for failure to comply with the direction issued under s. 8 of the Act of 1994. The accused was conveyed to Kevin Street Garda Station where she was later charged with the offences set out on the charge sheets and was released on recognisance to appear before the District Court. All of the evidence relevant to the commission of the offences charged relate to what happened before the arrest and no relevant evidence in respect of the offences relates to what happened after the arrest.

4 At the close of the prosecution case, the Solicitor for the accused sought a dismissal of the charges on the basis that Garda O'Reilly had not stated in evidence what power of arrest was used where she had stated she arrested the respondent. This was fatal to the prosecution, it was argued. The District Judge was only concerned with the issue raised on behalf of the respondent that the power of arrest was not stated in evidence by Garda O'Reilly.

5 The District Judge accepted the arguments made on behalf of the respondent and held that proof of a valid arrest was required and that it was fatal to the prosecution case that Garda O'Reilly did not state the power of arrest used to arrest the respondent. The District Judge dismissed both charges.

6 The appellant has appealed by way of case stated and seeks the opinion of this Court on the following questions: -

(1) Was the District Judge correct in holding that proof of a valid arrest is required as an essential ingredient in a prosecution for offences contrary to ss. 6 and 8 of the...