DPP v Flanagan
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1980 |
| Date | 01 January 1980 |
| Docket Number | [1978 No. 39 S.S.] |
| Court | Supreme Court |
Whether operation and promotion of a slot machine comes within definition of unlawful gaming - Within s. 4 (1) (c) of the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956 - Effect of repeal of s. 10 of the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956 - Statute - Interpretation - Repeal -Whether repeal of one section affected other sections - Whether repeal created criminal offence by implication - Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956 (No. 2), ss. 4, 10 - Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1970 (No. 6), s. 1.
Section 10 of the Act of 1956 provided that no person should operate any slot-machine of the type there described, and s. 4. sub-s. 1 (c), of the same Act provided that no person should promote, assist in promoting, or provide facilities for any kind of gaming by means of any slot-machine "not prohibited by section 10." The Act of 1970 repealed s. 10 of the Act of 1956 without referring to any other section of that Act. The defendant was charged in the District Court on a complaint that in 1973 he had promoted gaming, or had provided facilities for gaming, by means of a slot-machine not prohibited by s. 10 of the Act of 1956, contrary to the provisions of s. 4, sub-s. 1 (c), of that Act. At the hearing of the complaint it was established that in 1973 the defendant had supplied a publican with a slot-machine of the type described in s. 10 of the Act of 1956 for use in the publican's licensed premises on the terms that profits from the use of the machine by the publican's customers would be shared between the defendant and the publican. The District Justice was of the opinion that the facts proved before him established the offence with which the defendant was charged but, because of the repeal of s. 10 of the Act of 1956, he referred to the High Court a question asking whether the facts proved before him constituted a promotion by the defendant of unlawful gaming contrary to s. 4, sub-s. 1 (c), of the Act of 1956. The complainant contended that the repeal of s. 10 had also eliminated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Health Service Executive -v- JC
...Brennan & Ors [2015]IEHC 143; Crilly T & J Farrington Limited [2001]3 IR 252; O’Dwyer v Keegan [1997] 2 ILRM 401. DPP v Flanagan [1979] IR 265; Howard v Commissioner for Public Works [1994] 1 IR 101; B and P v United Kingdom (2002) 34 E.H.R.R. 529; and Moser v Austria (Application no. 12643......
-
Forde v DPP
...extension of criminal liability through the use of lax or oblique language: see, e.g., Director of Public Prosecutions v. Flanagan [1979] I.R. 265, 281, per Henchy J. and The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v. Cagney [2008] 2 I.R. 111, 120-121, per Hardiman J.' 36 I am satisfied ......
-
DPP v Brown
...Courtauld v. Legh (1869) L. R. 4 Ex. 126. Crilly v. T. & J. Farrington Ltd. [2001] 3 I.R. 251; [2002] 1 I.L.R.M. 161. D.P.P. v. Flanagan [1979] I.R. 265; (1979) 114 I.L.T.R. 34. Director of Public Prosecutions v. Avadenei [2017] IESC 77, [2018] 3 I.R. 215. Director of Public Prosecutions v.......
-
DPP v T.N.
...the words of the statute have not plainly indicated that the conduct in question will amount to an offence …’ [19] In DPP v. Flanagan [1979] I.R. 265, Henchy J. said at pp. 280 and 281: ‘It is, in my view, a cardinal principle in the judicial interpretation of statutes that the range of cri......