DPP v Fox

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: McGuinness J.
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1997
• Neutral Citation: [1996] IEHC 30
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: No. 809SS/Record No. 1996
• Date: 01 January 1997

DPP v. FOX

IN THE MATTER OF THE SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT 1867 SECTION 2

IN THE MATTER OF THE COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACTS 1961

TO 1991

IN THE MATTER OF THE RULES OF THE DISTRICT COURT

BETWEEN

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

COMPLAINANT/PROSECUTOR

AND

FRANCIS FOX

DEFENDANT/ACCUSED

[1996] IEHC 30

No. 809SS/Record No. 1996

THE HIGH COURT

Synopsis:

G7HG7

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE

Case stated - summonses issued - offences committed under Diseases of Animals Act 1966 and S.I. 308/1989 - whether time-limit for issuing of summonses had expired - s.1 Courts (No.3) Act 1986 - statutory time-limits - whether time-limits in pre-1986 statutes stand - whether provision of statutes should be recited on face of summons - Held: Issuing of summonses were within time-limit - (High Court - McGuinness J. - 07/11/1996) - [1997] 1 ILRM 440

|DPP v. Fox|

Citations:

SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT 1857 S2

COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACT 1961 S51

BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS (ATTESTATION OF THE STATE & GENERAL PROVISIONS) ORDER 1989 SI 308/1989 REG 16(2)

DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACT 1966

COURTS (NO 3) ACT 1986 S1

DPP V NOLAN ROCHE & KELLY 1990 2 IR 526

BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS (ATTESTATION OF THE STATE & GENERAL PROVISIONS) ORDER 1989 SI 308/1989 REG 19(1)(a)

BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS (ATTESTATION OF THE STATE & GENERAL PROVISIONS) ORDER 1989 SI 308/1989 REG 32(3)

BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS (ATTESTATION OF THE STATE & GENERAL PROVISIONS) ORDER 1989 SI 308/1989 REG 48(1)(h)

BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS (ATTESTATION OF THE STATE & GENERAL PROVISIONS) ORDER 1989 SI 308/1989 REG 35

BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS (ATTESTATION OF THE STATE & GENERAL PROVISIONS) ORDER 1989 SI 308/1989 REG 2

BOVINE DISEASES (LEVIES) ACT 1979 S18

DPP V HOWARD UNREP BARRON 17.11.89 1989/5/1264

PETTY SESSIONS (IRL) ACT 1851

COURTS (NO 3) ACT 1986 S1(7)(a)

1 Judgment of McGuinness J.delivered on the 7th day of November,1996 .

2 These proceeding come before this Court by way of a Case Stated pursuant to the provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1857 as amended and extended by Section 51 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961.

3 The Case Stated arises out of a prosecution pursuant to the Bovine Tuberculosis (Attestation of the State and General Provisions) Order, 1989 (SI 308 of 1989) and the Diseases of Animals Act, 1966. Four summonses were issued alleging that the Defendant committed a number of offences on the 29th of November, 1993, the 30th of November, 1993 and the 3rd of December, 1993. The summonses were issued pursuant to Section 1 of the Courts (No. 3) Act, 1986(which I shall refer to as the 1986 Act) and the date of application for the summonses was the 4th of September, 1995. They were originallyreturnable to the District Court at Crossmolina, Co. Mayo on the 5th October, 1995. When the matter came on for hearing before the District Judge on the 4th of January, 1996 it was submitted on behalf of the Defendant that the time limit for summonses issued pursuant to the Courts (No. 3) Act, 1986is a time limit of six months and that no other time limit arises except in the case of certain statutory offences where shorter time limits may apply. The authority given to the District Judge for this proposition was the decision of the Supreme Court in the cases of D.P.P.-v- Arthur Nolan and D.P.P. -v- District Justice Maura Roche and Paul Kelly reported at [1989]ILRM 39 (these cases are also reported at [1990] 2IR 526 and in the course of this judgment I will refer to that report).

4 The District Judge held that the point raised by the Defendant's Solicitor was valid and dismissed all four summonses. The Prosecutor then applied for a case to be stated to this Court pursuant to Section 2 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1857 as extended by Section 51 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961and the District Judge has accordingly sought the opinion of this Court as to whether his determination was correct in point of law.

5 The offences with which the Defendant was charged in the summonses arise under Regulations No. 16(2), 19(1)(a), 32(3) and 48(1)(h) of the Bovine Tuberculosis (Attestation of the State and General Provisions) Order, 1989. Regulation 35 of that Order provides that "where a person contravenes any provision of this Order, he shall be guilty of an offence under the Act" (the Act being defined in Regulation 2 as the Diseases of Animals Act, 1966). Both the Statutory Instrument and the 1966 Act are recited in thesummonses.

6 Section 18 of the Bovine Diseases (Levies) Act, 1979(No. 26 of 1979) provides as follows:

" 18 Notwithstanding Section 10(4) of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, proceedings for an offence under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1966or under this Act may be instituted at any time within two years after the date of the offence."

7 Counsel on behalf of the Prosecutor in her argument relies on this section as providing a time limit of two years rather than six months from the date of the alleged offence to the date of application for a summons under Section 1of the 1986 Act. With regard to the authority cited in the District Court, she submits that this point also arose before the learned Barron J. in the case of D.P.P. -v-Howard and was dealt with in his judgment in that case ( unreported 17th November, 1989). In that judgment the learned Barron J. held that in the case of a Revenue Prosecution where the statutory limit for the issue of a summons is one year, that limit also applied where application was made for the issue of a summons under the 1986 Act.

8 Counsel on behalf of the Defendant submits that the time limit for the application for a summons under the 1986 Act cannot be longer than six months and refers me to the authority cited in the District Court. He suggests that where, as in the case of the 1979 Act, a longer statutory time limit is provided, the Prosecutor must use the complaint procedure under the...