DPP v Conlon

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeFinnegan J.
Judgment Date20 December 2001
Neutral Citation2001 WJSC-HC 1697
CourtHigh Court
Docket Number[2000 No. 2098 S.S.]
Date20 December 2001

2001 WJSC-HC 1697

THE HIGH COURT

Record No. 2098SS/2000
DPP (GANNON) v. CONLON
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 2 OF THE SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT,1857

AND

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 51 OF THE COURTS (SUPPLEMENTALPROVISIONS) ACT, 1961

BETWEEN

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS AT THE SUIT OFINSPECTOR PATRICK J. GANNON
APPELLANT

AND

GREGORY CONLON
RESPONDENT

Citations:

SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT 1857 S2

DCR O.8

COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACT 1961 S51

COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT 1924 S86

COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT 1924 PART III

COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT 1924 S91

DCR O.102 r8

DCR O.102 r8(2)

DCR O.102 r8(3)

T V T 1983 IR 29

MURPHY, DPP V REGAN 1993 ILRM 335

AG V SHIVNAN 1970 IR 66

RSC O.124 r1

O V M 1977 IR 33

WILLIS V EARL BEAUCHAMP 1886 11 PD 59

HALSBURYS LAWS OF ENGLAND VOL 37 PARA 14

CROWLEY V MCVEIGH 1990 ILRM 220 1989 IR 73

THOMPSON V CURRY 1970 IR 61

RULES OF THE SUPERIOR COURTS (No. 2) 1966 SI 169/1966.

RSC O.62 r5

RSC O.108 r7

RSC O.62 r1

COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT 1924 S36

DPP V REGAN 1993 ILRM 335

Synopsis:

CASE STATED

District Judge

Practice and procedure - Preliminary issue - Whether statutory requirements for stating of case to complied with - Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1857 section 2 - District Court Rules, 1997 SI 93/1997 - Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961 section 51 - Courts of Justice Act, 1924 section 86 - Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986 SI 15/1986 Order 124 (2000/2098 SS - Finnegan J - 20/12/01)

DPP v Conlon - [2001] 4 IR 376

The case concerned the stating of a case from the District Court for the opinion of the High Court. A preliminary issue of law arose as to whether the case stated could be heard in the High Court as it was argued by the respondent that the appellant had failed to comply with the relevant statutory requirements. There were four different grounds put forward by the respondent as to why the Court should decline to hear the case stated. Held by Mr. Justice Finnegan in refusing to hear the case stated. In relation to the first complaint there was a minimal discrepancy between the prescribed form and the one actually used and the Court would disregard the non-compliance complained of. The second complaint centred around the sending of the relevant form to the wrong District Court clerk and the receipt of the same form by the correct District Court clerk. Mr. Justice Finnegan was satisfied that in relation to this complaint the relevant District Court Rules had been complied with. In relation to the third complaint there had been a serious non-compliance with the District Court Rules relating to the service of the relevant notice on the respondent. The fourth complaint related to an alleged failure to comply with the three day time limit as set out in section 2 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1857. The court was prepared to accept that the District Court Rules of 1997 had extended the relevant period to fourteen days and the appellant had complied with the section in question. However the failure to serve the respondent as set out in the third complaint meant that the statutory jurisdiction of the court had not been invoked and the court refused to furnish an opinion on the case stated.

1

Judgment of Finnegan J.delivered the 20th day of December 2001

2

This is an appeal by way of Case Stated brought by the Appellant against an Order of the District Court (District Judge John Brophy) made on the 26th day of January 2000 at Navan District Court. When the matter came on for hearing before me the Respondent raised a preliminary point of law and argued that the Case Stated could not be entertained by reason of the alleged failure by the Appellant to comply with the requirements of the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1857 Section 2 and the District Court Rules 1997 Order 102 Rule 8.

3

The relevant provision contained in the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1857 Section 2 is as follows:

"After the hearing in determination by a Justice or Justices of the Peace of any information or complaint which he or they have power to determine in a summary way by any law now in force or hereafter to be made, either party to the proceeding before the said Justice or Justices may, if dissatisfied with the said determination as being erroneous in point of law apply in writing within three days after the same to the said Justice or Justices, to state and sign a case setting forth the facts and the grounds of such determination, for the opinion thereon of one of the Superior Courts of Law to be named by the partyapplying.".

4

The Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961Section 51 extended Section 2 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1857 and provides as follows:-

"51(1) Section 2 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1857 is hereby extended so as to enable any party to any proceedings whatsoever heard and determined by a Justice of the District Court (other than proceedings relating to an indictable offence which was not dealt with summarily by the court) if dissatisfied with such determination as being erroneous on a point of law, to apply in writing within fourteen days after such determination to the said Justice to state and sign a case setting forth the facts and the grounds of such determination for the opinion thereon of the High Court."

5

The Courts of Justice Act 1924Section 86 provides as follows:-

"Every case stated or appealed shall be in such form and manner in every respect and subject to such conditions whether as to time or otherwise (including the lodgment of any monies in civil cases and the entering into a bond with sureties in criminal cases) as the rules to be made under this part of this Act mayprescribe."

6

The last mentioned section is in part 3 of the Act which deals with the District Court: Section 91 of the Act provides for District Court Rules. Accordingly it is clear that the rules referred to in Section 86 are the rules of the District Court.

7

The relevant rule of the District Court Rules 1997 for the purposes of this application is Order 102 Rule 8 which provides as follows:-

8

2 "8(1) An application pursuant to Section 2 of the Act of 1857 (as extended by Section 51(1) of the Act of 1961) to state and sign a case for the opinion of the High Court shall be by notice in form 102.3 Schedule D.

9

(2) Such notice shall when completed, be lodged by the Appellant or by the Solicitor for the Appellant with the Clerk for the court area in which the proceedings were heard and determined within fourteen days after determination.

10

(3) A copy of the notice shall, within the said fourteen days, be served by registered post upon every other party to theproceedings."

11

The Respondent's first complaint is that the notice relied upon by the Appellant for the purposes of Order 102 Rule 8(2) was not in the prescribed form but rather was the notice prescribed by the former District Court Rules and in form A6 to the Schedule of those rules. I have compared the two forms. That under the present rules contains a heading " Summary Jurisdiction Act 1857 Section 2" and is described as notice of application to state a case. That under the former rules has as a heading notice requiring a case stated. The body of the form is in each case identical.

12

The second complaint is that the form lodged was directed and in its heading referred to District Court No. 6 rather than District Court No. 10. This is explained as a typographical error by the Appellant. The form was however served correctly on the District Court Clerk, District No. 10.

13

The third complaint is of not compliance with Rule 8(3) in that the notice was served by ordinary post on the respondent's solicitor rather than by registered post as required by the Rule but more particularly it was argued on behalf of the Appellant the form ought to have been served on the Appellant and not upon the Solicitor who appeared for him before the District Court.

14

The fourth complaint is that the application to the District Judge was not made within three days after the determination as required by the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1857 Section 2. althought it was lodged within the time limited by the District Court Rules 1997 Order 102 Rule8(2).

15

The issues raised...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • DPP v Conlon
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • June 25, 2003
  • DPP v McMahon
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • June 27, 2002
    ... ... PROSECUTIONS APPELLANT AND TERENCE MCMAHON RESPONDENT Citations: ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S49(2) ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S6(a) ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S53 O SIODHACHAIN V COY & ORS UNREP SUPREME 19.1.1996 1996/7/2139 RSC O.102 r8 GANNON, DPP V CONLON UNREP FINNEGAN 20.12.2001 CROWLEY & ANOR V MCVEIGH 1990 ILRM 220 1989 IR 73 AG V SHIVNAN 1970 IR 66 DPP V REGAN 1993 ILRM 335 ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S104 PIERSE ROAD TRAFFIC LAW 611 ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S49 ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S53 Synopsis: CRIMINAL LAW ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT