DPP v O'Connor

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: O'Neill J.
• Judgment Date: 19 January 2010
• Neutral Citation: [2010] IEHC 338
• Docket Number: [No. 1673 J.R./2007]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 19 January 2010

[2010] IEHC 338

THE HIGH COURT

[No. 1673 J.R./2007]

DPP v O'Connor

JUDICIAL REVIEW

BETWEEN

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

APPLICANT

AND

JUDGE JAMES O'CONNOR

RESPONDENT

AND

CYRIL O'BRIEN

NOTICE PARTY

CRIMINAL LAW

Charge sheet

Amendment - Application to re-amend after close of prosecution case - Fair procedures - Drunk driving - Location of offence - Amendment to location - Every element of charge admitted except townland - Whether re-amendment breach of fair procedures - Charge dismissed - Whether identification of townland element of offence - Order quashed (2007/1673JR- O'Neill J - 19/01/2010) [2010] IEHC 338

DPP v Judge O'Connor

O'Neill J.

1 This is a most unusual case. The application is by the Director of Public Prosecutions for judicial review for the usual array of orders in relation to the acquittal by the respondent of the notice party on a charge of drunk driving.

2 The facts appear to be as follows. The alleged offence is said to have occurred on 6^th November, 2006. A Charge Sheet was raised against the applicant and that came before the District Court on 9^th November, 2007. On that occasion, evidence was given by Garda O'Donovan of arrest, charge and caution, and also on that occasion, he intimated a disquiet about the location stated in the Charge Sheet.

3 The disquiet which was raised then, unfortunately, bedevilled the proceedings from then on. He was concerned that the townland of Castlemaine, as was stated in the Charge Sheet, was not the correct one, that it was an adjoining townland of Annagh. The Charge Sheet itself, as is apparent from it, does not specify a townland at all: it simply refers to the location as being Castlemaine, and no more. In any event, there began, then, and there continued thereafter, what, in my view, was an entirely futile and irrelevant debate concerning the townland.

4 The matter progressed further, and an application was made to amend the townland early the following year, when the matter came back before the District Court again. That application was granted and that resulted in the Charge Sheet reading, not Annagh, alone, but Annagh and also Castlemaine.

5 Going hand-in-hand with the progress of the prosecution, at this stage, was a very reasonable approach adopted by the defence, consistent, apparently, with practise in the District Court in that area, namely, that the various elements of the prosecution case which were not disputed, were, in fact, admitted, by the applicant in this case, through his solicitor, Mr. O'Donoghue. The upshot of that process was that only two matters remained in dispute, and that was whether or not the location where it is alleged the offence occurred was a public place, and whether or not the townland, as now stated in the amended charge, was the correct townland.

6 It would appear that the District Judge became embroiled in this controversy and engaged by it. Indeed, the evidence would suggest that he, too, became so engaged in it as to be the instigator of much that followed, namely, the matter was adjourned and the parties were sent away to investigate what was the correct townland, and this they did.

7 Mr. O'Donoghue, on behalf of the applicants, engaged an engineer, and in due course, by early March, he had got a report from the engineer which clearly pointed out that the correct townland was Castlemaine and not the amended onei.e. Annagh or Annagh/Castlemaine, and he wrote to Superintendent O'Donovan by letter of 5^th March, 2007, telling Superintendent O'Donovan of this state of affairs, and as a consequence of that, it is not quite clear from the evidence whether a discussion took place on the morning of 8^th March, 2007, when the matter was before the court again, or whether in advance of that, a discussion had taken place between Superintendent O'Donovan...