DPP v Logan

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Carney J.
• Judgment Date: 26 February 1993
• Neutral Citation: 1993 WJSC-HC 1864
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: 557 s.s./1992
• Date: 26 February 1993

1993 WJSC-HC 1864

THE HIGH COURT

557 s.s./1992

DPP v. LOGAN

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 2 OF THE SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT,

1857 AS EXTENDED BY SECTION 51 OF THE COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL

PROVISIONS) ACT 1961

BETWEEN

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

COMPLAINANT

AND

WILLIAM LOGAN

DEFENDANT

Citations:

SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT 1857 S2

COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACT 1961 S51

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1951 S7

KIERNAN, STATE V GOVERNOR OF MOUNTJOY UNREP SUPREME 19.02.73

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1951 S2(1)

PETTY SESSIONS (IRL) ACT 1851 S10(4)

MCGRAIL V RUANE 1989 ILRM 498

DPP V CARLTON UNREP MORRIS 24.6.91 1991/8/1828

Synopsis:

CRIMINAL LAW

Proceedings

Commencement - District Court - Summons - Issue - Delay - Relevance - Charge - Indictable offence - Statutory time limit inapplicable - Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, s. 10 - Criminal Justice Act, 1951, s. 7 - Courts (No. 3) Act, 1986, s. 1 - (1992/557 SS - Carney J. - 26/2/93)

|Director of Public Prosecutions v. Logan|

1 Judgment delivered the 26th day of February 1993by Carney J.

2 This is a Case Stated by Judge Thomas Fitzpatrick seeking the opinion of the High Court as to whether he was correct in law in dismissing two charges of indictable assault being prosecuted before him summarily. The criminal process was not initiated until eleven and a half months had elapsed from the date of the alleged offence.

3 The prosecution sought to justify this delay on the basis that the Gardai had difficulty in obtaining statements from witnesses and that it had taken time to come to an informed decision as to whether toprosecute.

4 If the Defendant had been in any fashion prejudiced by this delay, one might reasonably infer that his Solicitor would have made submissions in this regard. It would appear from the terms of the Case Stated that the only submissionmade by the Defence Solicitor was that the learned Judge of the District Court had previously dismissed an assault case on similar grounds inLetterkenny.

5 The learned Judge of the District Court dismissed the charges and said that he did so on the grounds of delay and that the initiation of the proceedings by way of an application for the issue of a summons was not made within the period of six months from the date of the alleged offences in circumstances where the prosecution had decided to deal with the case summarily. He indicates that had the Director of Public Prosecutions decided to prosecute the case on indictment he would hold that the six month limitation period did not apply.

6 I am asked to decide whether this determination was correct in law and I will take the latter point first. In this regard the learned District Court Judge was...