DPP v Doyle

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Denham J.
• Judgment Date: 09 March 1994
• Neutral Citation: 1994 WJSC-SC 537
• Court: Supreme Court
• Docket Number: [S.C. No. 93 of 1993],199/93
• Date: 09 March 1994

DPP v. DOYLE

BETWEEN

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

Prosecutor/

Respondent

and

GARY DOYLE

Accused/

Appellant

1994 WJSC-SC 537

199/93

THE SUPREME COURT

Synopsis:

CONSTITUTION

Personal rights

Fair procedures - Offence - Trial - Mode - Accused - Notice - Entitlement - Indictable offence beng tried summarily - Whether accused entitled to copy statements made by prosecution witnesses - (199/93 - Supreme Court - 9/3/94) - [1994] 2 I.R. 294

|Director of Public Prosecutions v. Doyle|

CRIMINAL LAW

Trial

Mode - District Court - Discretion - Exercise - Indictable offence - Minor offence fit to be tried summarily - Summary trial - Defendant's rights - Whether defendant entitled to statements G7@ of prosecution witnesses as if other course had been chosen - Criminal Procedure Act, 1967, s. 6 - Constitution of Ireland, 1937, Articles 38, 40 - (199/93 - Supreme Court - 9/3/94)

|Director of Public Prosecutions v. Doyle|

DISTRICT COURT

Offence

Trial - Defendant - Rights - Prosecution - Evidence - Notice - Alleged offence being indictable but tried summarily - (199/93 - Supreme Court - 9/3/94) [1994] 2 I.R. 294 - [1994] 1 ILRM 529

|Director of Public Prosecutions v. Doyle|

NATURAL JUSTICE

Fair procedures

Offence - Trial - Defendant - Rights - Prosecution - Evidence - Notice - Entitlement - Summary trial of indictable offence - (199/93 - Supreme Court - 9/3/94) [1994] 2 I.R. 294 - 1994 1 ILRM 529

|Director of Public Prosecutions v. Doyle|

NOTICE

Necessity

Offence - Trial - Prosecution - Obligation - Indictable offence being tried summarily - Statements of prosecution witnesses - Defendant's entitlement to statements - (199/93 - Supreme Court - 9/3/94) - [1994] 2 I.R. 294 - [1994] 1 ILRM 529

|Director of Public Prosecutions v. Doyle|

Citations:

LARCENY ACT 1916 S23A

CRIMINAL LAW (JURISDICTION) ACT 1976 S6

COWZER V KIRBY 1992 ICLJ 114

CLUNE & ORS V DPP 1981 ILRM 17

LARCENY ACT 1916 S29(1)

LARCENY ACT 1916 S30

HEALY, STATE V DONOGHUE 1976 IR 325

1 JUDGEMENT delivered on the 9th day of March 1994 by Denham J. [NEM DISS]

2 This is an appeal by the Accused/Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) from a decision of the High Court on a consultative case stated from James Paul McDonnell a Judge of the District Court.

3 The appellant was born on 19th June 1976 and was originally brought to the Juvenile Court on 2nd September 1992, to answer four indictable charges, one of burglary, and three of attempted burglary, contrary to s. 23 A Larceny Act, 1916, as amended. The four charges were set out in Cabra Charge Sheets numbers 747 to 750 of 1992.

4 The burglary charge stated:

"For that you the said accused on 22nd day of August 1992 having entered a building known as a garden shed in the rear garden of 13 Ashington Grove, Navan Road in the Dublin Metropolitan District, stole therein two screwdrivers and one pliers value £10 the property of Stephen Harrison. Contrary to section 23A of the Larceny Act, 1916 as inserted by section 6 of the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act, 1976."

5 One of the attempted burglary charges stated:

"That you the said accused on 15th day of August 1992 did enter as a trespasser a building known as the garden shed at 52 East Priory with intent to steal therein. Contrary to section 23A Larceny Act, 1916 as amended by the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act, 1976."

6 The remaining charges of attempted burglary vary only as to the location of the garden shed.

7 On 2nd September 1992 the appellant was granted legal aid. He was remanded on consent to successive days thereafter and on 22nd October, 1992 he, with the assistance of his solicitor, consented to the summary jurisdiction of the District Court, and pleaded not guilty to each of the four charges.

8 The matter came before the District Judge on 17th November, 1992. Garda Colm Healy deposed that he had interviewed the appellant on 1st September, 1992 at Cabra Garda Station, in the presence of the father of the appellant, and that the appellant had made a formal written statement to him in the course of that interview. A copy of that statement, which was in the form of a confession, was attached to the case stated. Garda Healy stated that he had interviewed the four injured parties on various dates but that he did not take a written statement from any of them. Neither he nor any of the other gardai involved in the investigations had made a written statement, or taken any other statements, nor did he have notes of the interviews

9 At this stage counsel for the appellant raised objection to the proceedings on the grounds that the Director of Public Prosecutions had failed and refused to furnish the appellant with statements of all witnesses whose evidence is crucial to the prosecution case against him in the circumstances where the appellant's solicitor had requested the gardai to take statements from the witnesses in the case.

10 Counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions submitted that there was no general right of the appellant to receive any statements taken by the gardai; and he submitted further that (as in the instant case) where there were, in fact, no statements taken from the witnesses, there could be no obligation in any event to furnish the appellant with any such statements.

11 Garda Healy stated that he had received a letter dated 2nd September, 1992 from the solicitor for the appellant requesting copies of statements taken by the gardai and relying on the decision of the High Court in Thomas Cowzer v. Judge Brian Kirby and the D.P.P.unreported decision of the 11th February, 1991. He furnished the solicitor of the appellant with the only statement in his possession, being that of the appellant. Garda Healy got a further letter from Mr. Pol O'Murchu, the appellant's solicitor, acknowledging the receipt of the copy of the appellant's statement and asking for all the statements from witnesses. Garda Healy telephoned Mr. O'Murchu and informed him that he had no other statements.

12 After legal argument Judge McDonnell stated this consultative case at the request of counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions. The opinion of the High Court was requested on two question of law, being:

13 1. Where an indictable charge is being disposed of by way of summary trial in the District Court, is there a general obligation on the prosecution to furnish, on request, the statements of the proposed witnesses for the prosecution?

14 2 If the answer to question (1) is in the affirmative, does such an obligation extend to a case where no statements of witnesses have in fact been taken by the Garda Siochana in the course of the investigation of the offence charged against the accused?

15 In the High Court the first question was answered by Geoghegan J. in the negative but he qualified it by declaring that while there was no general obligation an obligation may arise in a particular case if justice requires the furnishing of statements, a matter to be determined in case of dispute by the Judge.

16 As regards the second question the learned High Court Judge declared that having regard to the answer to question number one this question strictly speaking did not arise but he declared that in a case where if statements had been taken justice would have required that they be furnished, then if in such a case no statements have been taken a summary of the crucial evidence for the prosecution should be furnished in advance of the trial.

17 On liberty to appeal being granted by the learned High Court Judge the appellant appealed on the ground that:

"The Learned Trial Judge erred in law in holding that where an indictable matter is being disposed of by way of summary trial in the District Court there is no general obligation on the prosecution to furnish on request the statements of the proposed witnesses for the prosecution."

18 Two prior High Court decisions have considered the matter in issue in this case. In Clune and Ors. v. D.P.P. 1981 I.L.R.M. 17 the accused were charged with common assault and with the indictable offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, they consented to summary trial and then requested copies of statements of evidence of intended witnesses, which the State Solicitor refused to furnish. The accused obtained an interim injunction restraining the Director of Public Prosecutions from proceeding in the District Court and a conditional order of prohibition prohibiting the District Judge from hearing the prosecutions for the indictable offences without copies of the statements of evidence being furnished. The facts did not disclose if the injunction was made prior to the District Judge considering if the case involved a minor offence fit to be tried summarily. On the application for an interlocutory injunction and for an order making absolute the conditional order of prohibition, Gannon J. held that the applications were of the nature of quia timet, and refused the application, stating at page 20:

"Essentially these applications are of the nature quia timet which, to succeed, must be founded upon a genuinely apprehended threat of irreparable harm. The Director of Public Prosecutions is invested by the Legislature with the power and authority to perform some of the constitutional functions of the Attorney General. This Court must presume that the D.P.P. will conform with the principles of justice (as would the Attorney General) in the exercise of his functions. It would require very strong and convincing evidence to displace that presumption. The evidence offered on this application for an injunction does not measure up to the standard required to support an application for an injunction quia timet."

19 An Order of Prohibition directed to a court will not be granted quia timet to prevent any court lawfully established in the State...