DPP v District Judge O'Neill
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Noonan |
| Judgment Date | 11 November 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] IEHC 688 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 11 November 2015 |
[2015] IEHC 688
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
AND
Revenue – S.1 of the Courts (No. 3) Act 1986 as amended by s. 49 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 and s. 19 of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2008 – The Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 – S.4 of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act 1851 – Jurisdiction of District Court whether arise from date of complaint or date of issuance of summons
Facts: The applicant sought an order of certiorari for quashing the decision of the respondent for declining jurisdiction in relation to three summons issued against the notice party on the ground that the relevant date for determining the address of the notice party where the summons were served was the date of complaint before the District Court and not the date of issue of summons. The applicant also sought an order of mandamus for directing the respondent to assume jurisdiction.
Mr. Justice Noonan granted an order of certiorari and quashed the decision of the respondent for declining jurisdiction in relation to three summons issued against the notice party. The Court also granted an order of mandamus for directing the respondent to assume jurisdiction and deal with the proceedings according to the subject matter of the said summons. The Court observed that whereas the jurisdiction of the District Court was invoked by the making of a complaint under Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, the parallel procedure now available under the Courts (No. 3) Act 1986 provided that the District Court should exercise jurisdiction at the time the summons were issued. The Court found that if a contrary view was adopted, it would frustrate the efforts of the prosecution as the accused would keep on changing address possibly between the date of issue of summons and the return date in the District Court, which was never intended by the legislature.
JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Noonan delivered the 11th day of November 2015
1. In these proceedings, the applicant ("the DPP") seeks:
(a) An order of certiorari quashing the decision of the respondent ("the District Judge") declining jurisdiction in respect of three summonses issued against the notice party ("Garuda"), such decision having been made on the 16 th of May 2014;
(b) An order of mandamus directing the District Judge to assume jurisdiction and deal with the proceedings the subject matter of the said summonses.
2. On the 10 th of December, 2013, an application was made by the Revenue Solicitor for the issue of three summonses pursuant to s. 1 of the Courts (No. 3) Act 1986, as amended by s. 49 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 and s. 19 of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2008 charging Garuda, a limited liability company, with three offences contrary to the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997. The summonses were issued on the same date and sent to An Garda Síochána for service on Garuda. The summonses were returnable before the Dublin Metropolitan District Court on the 29 th of January, 2014. On the date the summonses were issued, Garuda had a registered office at The Gables, Torquay Road, Foxrock, Dublin 18.
3. Thereafter, a companies form B2 was signed by Garuda's secretary, Michael Lowry, dated the 31 st of December, 2013, changing the registered office from the said Dublin address to Abbey Road, Thurles, County Tipperary. This form was received by the Companies Registration Office on the 10 th of January, 2014. The effective date of change of the registered office was the 13 th of January, 2014.
4. On the 16 th of January, 2014, the summonses were served by a member of An Garda Síochána at the Dublin address where they were accepted by a person at that address. On the 17 th of January, 2014, Garuda's solicitors wrote to the Revenue Solicitor advising that the registered office of the company had changed to the Tipperary address and they assumed that a fresh summons would now be issued returnable to the appropriate District Court area.
5. The Revenue Solicitor replied on the 24 th of January, 2014, stating that service of the summons had been accepted on behalf of Garuda and the DPP reserved the right to ask the District Court to deem the service good.
6. The summonses came before the District Judge sitting at District Court Number 8, Four Courts, Dublin 7 on the 29 th of January, 2014, when the matter was adjourned for legal argument. That subsequently took place on the 16 th of April, 2014. Two of the summonses concerned offences allegedly committed in 2003 in County Tipperary and the third concerned an offence allegedly committed in 2007 in Dublin.
7. At the hearing before the District Judge, Garada argued that as it was not resident within the Dublin Metropolitan District when the summonses first came before him on the 29 th of January, 2014, he had no jurisdiction to hear the two summonses concerning the 2003 offences as they were allegedly committed in Tipperary. The DPP argued that as Garuda's registered office was in Dublin when the summonses were issued, the District Judge had jurisdiction to hear the matter and in any event, the summons in respect of the 2007 offence related to an offence allegedly committed in Dublin.
8. On the 16 th of May, 2014, the District Judge delivered his judgment and held that the relevant date for determining Garuda's "residence" was the date of the complaint before the District Court being the 29 th of January, 2014, and not the date of issue of the summons. Accordingly he concluded that he had no jurisdiction to hear the matter. He does not appear to have expressly dealt with the 2007 summons or given reasons as to why he considered himself not to have jurisdiction to deal with it.
9. Section 10 para. 4 of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act 1851 provides:
"In all cases of summary jurisdiction the complaint shall be made.... within six months from the time when the cause of complaint shall have arisen, but not otherwise:"
10. Section 79 of the Courts of Justice Act 1924 , as amended by s. 41 of the Courts and Courts Officers Act 1995, s. 5 of the Criminal Justice ( Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1997 and s. 22 of the Criminal Justice Act 1999, insofar as relevant to this case, provides as follows:
"[P]rovided that the jurisdictions by this Act vested in and transferred to the District Court shall be exercised by the justices severally as follows:-… In criminal cases, by a Justice for the time being assigned to the District wherein the crime has been committed or the accused has been arrested or resides;"
11. Section 1 of the Courts (No. 3) Act 1986 and substituted by s. 49 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 provides as follows:
2 "1.-
(1) Proceedings in the District Court in respect of an offence may be commenced by the issuing, as a matter of administrative procedure, of a document (in this section referred to as a 'summons') to the prosecutor by the appropriate office.
(2) The issue of a summons may, in addition to being effected by any method by which the issue of a summons could be effected immediately before the enactment of section 49 of the Act of 2004, be effected by transmitting it by electronic means to the person who applied for it or a person acting on his or her behalf.
(3) An application for the issue of a summons may be made to the appropriate office by or on behalf of the Attorney General, the Director of Public Prosecutions, a member of the Garda Síochána or any person authorised by or under an enactment to bring and prosecute proceedings for the offence concerned.
(4) The making of an application referred to in subsection (3) of this section may, in addition to being effected by any method by which the making of an application for a summons could be effected immediately before the enactment of section 49 of the Act of 2004, be effected by transmitting it to the appropriate office by electronic means.
(5) Where an application for the issue of a summons is made to-
(a) an office referred to in paragraph (a) of the definition of 'appropriate office' in this section, the summons may, instead of its being issued by that office, be issued by an office referred to in paragraph (b) of that definition, or
(b) an office referred to in paragraph (b) of that definition, the summons may, instead of its being issued by that office, be issued by an office referred to in paragraph (a) of that definition.
(6) A summons shall-
(a) specify the name of the person who applied for the issue of the summons,
(b) specify the application date as respects the summons,
(c) state shortly and in ordinary language particulars of the alleged offence, the name of the person alleged to have committed the offence and the address (if known) at which he or she ordinarily resides,
(d) notify that person that he or she will be accused of that offence at a sitting of the District Court specified by reference to its date and location and, insofar as is practicable, its time, and
(e) specify the name of an appropriate District Court clerk.
(7) For the avoidance of doubt, particulars of the penalty to which a person guilty of the offence concerned would be liable are not required to be stated in a summons.
(8) Where the issue of a summons is effected in accordance with subsection (2) of this section, references to an original summons in any enactment relating to the service of summonses (whether the references employ the word 'summons' or the expression 'original...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Reilly v DPP
...where a prosecution shall take place - see O'Malley v. Kelly & Anor [2014] IEHC 524 and DPP v. District Judge John O'Neill & Anor [2015] IEHC 688. 7 It is clear in the present case that the respondent from the outset gave directions that both the Tipperary and Limerick offences were to be......