DPP v Byrne
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1993 |
| Date | 01 January 1993 |
| Court | High Court |
- Issue - Delay - Road traffic offence - Computer delays - Road Traffic Act, 1961 (No. 24), s. 49 (2) and (4) -Road Traffic (Amendment) Act, 1978 (No. 8), s.10 - Road Traffic (Amendment) Act, 1984 (No.16), s. 3.
The respondent was charged under s. 49 (2) and (4) (a) of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, as inserted by s. 10 of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act, 1978, as amended by s. 3 of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act, 1984. The offence had allegedly been committed on 19 April, 1991. Application for the issue of a summons was made on 27 May, 1991. The summons was issued on 19 December, 1991, and was served shortly after that date. The matter came before the District Court on 12 February, 1992. The charge was dismissed by the District Judge on the grounds of unreasonable and unexplained delay in the prosecution of the offence. The District Judge stated a case to the High Court, seeking the opinion of the court as to whether she was correct in law in dismissing the said charge. Held by Geoghegan J. in finding that the District Judge was correct in law in dismissing the charge, 1, summonses should be issued within a reasonable time after they have been applied for and should be served within a reasonable time after issue. 2. What might be reasonable may require evidence in some cases. 3. The delay in issuing the summons in the present...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cormack v DPP
... ... To take but one example, the delay that can be tolerated for an ordinary street crime is considerably less than for a serious, complex conspiracy charge." ... 77 The latter part of this citation was adopted with approval by Finlay C.J. in The Director of Public Prosecutions v. Byrne [1994] 2 I.R. 236 ... The importance of the reference is to show that the courts both in the U.S. and in this jurisdiction do not simply drop a time guillotine on the prosecution of summary offences but rather emphasise instead that delay in minor cases is less to be condoned or tolerated. It is ... ...
-
The Extradition Acts 1965-1994, Andrew Martin v Noel Conroy and Michael Jones; Andrew Martin v Judge Miriam Malone and Attorney General
... ... IR 25 F (B) V DPP UNREP GEOGHEGAN 22.2.2001 CLARKE V MCMAHON 1990 1 IR 228 KAKIS V GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS 1978 1 WLR 779 K (M) V GROARKE & DPP UNREP KEARNS 13.9.2000 L (J) V DPP 2000 3 IR 122 B V DPP 1997 2 ILRM 118 DPP V BYRNE 1994 2 IR 236 HOGAN V PRESIDENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT 1994 2 IR 513 MAGUIRE V KEANE 1986 ILRM 235 BOURKE V AG 1972 IR 36 KOLCZYSKI, RE 1955 1 AER 31 MAGEE V CULLIGAN 1992 1 IR 223 QUILLIGAN V CONROY & SREENAN 2000 3 IR 154 SLOAN V CULLIGAN ... ...
-
McFarlane v DPP
... ... prosecutorial and/or systemic delay in conduct of judicial review proceedings - Whether delay referable to conduct of applicant - Whether delay breach of right to trial with reasonable expedition - AA v Medical Council [2003] 4 IR 302 , SM v Ireland [2007] IESC 11, [2007] 3 IR 283 , DPP v Byrne [1994] 2 IR 236 , PM v Malone [2002] 2 IR 560 and PM v DPP [2006] IESC 22, [2006] 3 IR 172 followed; B v DPP [1997] 3 IR 140 , DC v DPP [2005] IESC 77, [2005] 4 IR 281 , SA v DPP [2007] IESC 43, (Unrep, SC, 17/10/2007), Barker v Wingo (1972) 407 US 514, DPP v Byrne [1994] 2 IR 236, TH v ... ...
-
Devoy v DPP
... ... such as to require prohibition of trial - Whether real or serious risk of unfair trial - Whether applicant made out case of infringement of personal interest - PM v DPP [2006] IESC 22, [2006] 3 IR 172 , PM v Malone [2002] 2 IR 560 , MO'H v DPP [2007] IESC 12, [2007] 3 IR 299 , DPP v Byrne [1994] 2 IR 235 , B v DPP [1997] 3 IR 140 , DPP v Arthurs [2000] 2 ILRM 363 and Barker v Wingo (1972) 407 US 514 approved - Respondent's appeal allowed (150/2006 - SC - 7/4/2008) [2008] IESC 13 Devoy v DPP C (D) v DPP 2005 4 IR 281 2006 1 ILRM 348 2005/8/1599 DPP ... ...