DPP v Judge Hamill

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Keane C.J
• Judgment Date: 11 May 2000
• Neutral Citation: 2000 WJSC-SC 2607
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 11 May 2000

2000 WJSC-SC 2607

THE SUPREME COURT

Keane CJ.

Denham J.

Murphy J.

Murray J.

Hardiman J.

197/99

DPP v. HAMILL & DEIGHAN

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

.v.

JUDGE HAMILL AND DEIGHAN

Citations:

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S7

COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACT 1961 S25(2)

FITZSIMONS, STATE V CARNEY 1981 IR 406

FLYNN & O'FLAHERTY LTD, STATE V DUBLIN CORPORATION 1983 ILRM 125

RSC O.84 r20(2)(b)

Synopsis:

Administrative Law

Administrative; judicial review; error on the face; first named respondent made order for return to trial in excess of his jurisdiction; appeal from High Court decision ordering the matter to be remitted to first named respondent to reconsider the return for trial; whether High Court has jurisdiction to extend the time for serving the affidavits grounding the application even though the time period prescribed under the Rules of the Superior Courts had expired; whether High Court has jurisdiction, on the ground of the inadvertence of the applicant's solicitor as to the true legal situation, to extend the time period within which an application for leave to apply for judicial review must be made; whether applicant's solicitor verified the facts relied on in applicant's statement as required under O.84, r.20, Rules of the Superior Courts.

Held: Order of High Court affirmed; costs of appeal awarded to applicant.

DPP v. Hamill - Supreme Court: Keane C.J., Denham J., Murphy J., Murray J., Hardiman J. - 11/05/2000

The applicant had originally been returned for trial in the Circuit Court in error as the alleged offence could only be tried in the Central Criminal Court. The Director of Public Prosecutions ("the DPP") had then sought the matter to be remitted to the District Court to be reconsidered. In the High Court McGuinness J granted the order sought and the applicant now appealed against that the decision. The applicant argued inter alia that the DPP had been guilty of significant delay in initiating judicial review proceedings. The applicant also complained in relation to the extension of time granted by the High Court regarding the service of affidavits. Keane CJ, delivering judgment, rejected the arguments of the applicant. The High Court judge was entitled to make the order extending the time for making of the judicial review application. Although no order as to costs had been made in the High Court, Keane CJ was satisfied that the DPP should be awarded the costs of the appeal.

1 Extempore judgment delivered on the 11th day of May2000by Keane C.J. [nem diss]

2 This is an appeal from a judgment and order of the High Court (Mrs. Justice McGuinness) in which she ordered the matter to be remitted to the first named respondent, Judge Hamill and the Dublin Metropolitan District Court to reconsider the return for trial made by him in that case and reach a decision thereon. It arose because as is accepted by both the applicant, Mr. Deighan who appears in person, and on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions that the order for return for trial was made in excess of or without jurisdiction because the Judge of the District Court had no jurisdiction to return the applicant to the Dublin Circuit Court on the charge that he had committed an offence contrary to section 7 of the Offences Against the State Act 1939 sinceoffence contrary to section 7 of the Offences Against the State Act 1939 since section 25, sub-s. 2 of the Courts Supplemental (Provisions) Act 1961reserved to the Central Criminal Court jurisdiction over such offences. It follows that there is an error on the face of the record in that the said order of return for trial purports to return the accused, i.e. the applicant now in this court and in the High Court upon the said charge to the Circuit Criminal Court for Dublin City and County.

3 It is unnecessary to go into the actual facts which are alleged to have given rise to the prosecution but it is clear that the order as made appears on the face of it to have been made without or in excess of jurisdiction and indeed that is accepted on behalf of both the applicant and the respondent. However, in the High Court and again in this court the applicant has resisted the making of the order sought by the Director of Public Prosecutions on two grounds. He has added further grounds, perhaps in the High Court but certainly in this court. The first ground is that the High Court had extended the time for serving the necessary affidavits grounding the application...