DPP v Murphy
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mrs. Justice Denham,Keane, J,O'Flaherty J |
| Judgment Date | 29 July 1998 |
| Neutral Citation | [1998] IESC 19 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Docket Number | (200/98) |
| Date | 29 July 1998 |
[1998] IESC 19
THE SUPREME COURT
O'Flaherty J.,
Denham J.,
Barrington J.,
Keane J.,
Lynch J.,
BETWEEN:
Citations:
CRIMINAL JUSTICE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1997 S6
LARCENY ACT 1916
CRIMINAL JUSTICE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1997 S6(1)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1967 S31
CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1984 S26
CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1951 S15
MCDONNELL, AG V HIGGINS 1964 IR 374
LYNCH, STATE V BALLAGH 1987 IR 65
KEATING V GOV OF MOUNTJOY PRISON 1990 ILRM 850
EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY BILL 1996, IN RE 1997 2 IR 321
DPP, PEOPLE V FARRELL 1978 IR 13
HEALY, STATE V GOV OF CORK PRISON 1998 2 IR 93 1997 2 ILRM 357
MCCARTHY, STATE V GOV OF MOUNTJOY PRISON UNREP O DALAIGH 20.10.1967
CRIMINAL JUSTICE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1997 S6(4)
R V HUGHES 1879 QBD 614
LYNCH, STATE V BALLAGH 1986 IR 203
ART 26 OF THE CONSTITUTION & IN THE MATTER OF EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY BILL 1996, IN RE 1997 2 IR 321
R V JUDGE OF CITY OF LONDON COURT 1892 1 QB 273
RIVER WEAR COMMISSIONERS V ADAMSON 1877 2 AC 743
NESTOR V MURPHY 1979 IR 326
HEYDENS CASE 1584 3 CO REP 7
PEPPER V HART 1993 1 AER 42
KILLEEN V DPP 1997 3 IR 218
Synopsis
Criminal
Arrest; warrant; consultative case stated; statutory interpretation of s.6, Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1997; whether evidence must be adduced that accused arrested otherwise than under a warrant prior to admitting in evidence the certificate referred to in s.6; whether certificate appropriate form of proof Held: Appeal upheld; s.6, Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1997, does not require the district court to be satisfied that a person has been arrested otherwise than under a warrant prior to admitting in evidence the certificate referred to therein (Supreme Court : O'Flaherty J., Denham J., Barrington J., Keane J., Lynch J. 29/07/1998)
DPP v. Murphy - [1999] 1 IR 98 - [1999] 1 ILRM 51
Section 6(1) of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1997 requires, inter alia, that where a person who has been arrested otherwise than under a warrant first appears before the District Court charged with an offence, a certificate purporting to be signed by a member and stating that the member arrested, charged and cautioned a person with a specified offence shall be admissible as evidence of the matters stated in the certificate. The proper interpretation of section 6(1) did not require the District Court to be satisfied that a person had been arrested otherwise than under a warrant prior to admitting in evidence the certificate referred to. There was no impingement of the respondent's rights by a failure to have evidence at this initial stage that the arrest was otherwise than under warrant. The Supreme Court so held in allowing an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Judgment delivered on the 29th day of July, 1998, by O'Flaherty J
This is an appeal brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions from the judgment and order of the High Court (McCracken J.) of the 7th inst. (which order was perfected on the 15th inst.) in respect of a consultative case stated by Judge William G.J. Hamill of the District Court seeking the opinion of the High Court on the proper construction of s. 6 of the Criminal Justice ( Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1997.
Section 6 provides as follows:-
2 "(1) Where a person, who has been arrested otherwise than under a warrant, first appears before the District Court charged with an offence, a certificate purporting to be signed by amember and stating that that member did, at a specified time and place, any one or more of the following namely-
(a) arrested that person for a specified offence,
(b) charged that person with a specified offence, or
(c) cautioned that person upon his or her being arrested for, or charged with, a specified offence,
shall be admissible as evidence of the matters stated in thecertificate.
(2) ...
(3) ...
(4) In any criminal proceedings the court may, if it considers that the interests of justice so require, direct that oral evidence of the matters stated in a certificate under this section be given, and the court may for the purpose of receiving oral evidence adjourn the proceedings to a later date.
(5) A certificate under this section shall be tendered in evidence by a member not below the rank of sergeant.
(6) Upon the laying of a charge sheet and recognisance before the District Court, the court shall require the person (if any)present and to whom the charge sheet and recognisance relate, to identify himself or herself, and accordingly, on being so required, the person shall identify himself or herself, as the case may be, to thecourt.
(7) The Minister for Justice may, by regulations, prescribe the form of a certificate under this section."
The case stated recites that at a sitting of the Dublin Metropolitan District Court on the 16th February, 1998, the accused appeared before District Judge Hamill on Store Street charge sheet 487 which alleged offences contrary to the Larceny Act, 1916, as amended, committed on the 31st January, 1998.
On the 2nd February, 1998, the prosecuting garda, Garda Ivers, was not present in court but evidence of arrest, charge and caution was given in court by way of certificates in reliance on s. 6(1) of the Criminal Justice ( Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1997.
On that date Mr. Robinson, solicitor for the accused, asked that the matter should be remanded until the 16th February, without prejudice to the lawfulness of the accused's presence before the court. The purpose of this remand was to allow for legal argument before the district judge about the certification process.
On the 16th February, Mr. Robinson submitted that before the District Court can accept evidence of arrest, charge and caution by way of certificate as set out in s. 6(1) of the Act, the District Court must be satisfied that the person has been "arrested otherwise than under a warrant". He submitted that the certificates in question contained no averment that the arrest was "otherwise than under warrant" and further submitted that the section did not permit a certificate to provide evidence of such fact. The question that was raised was how the court would be aware that an arrest had been withoutwarrant.
The district judge sought the opinion of the High Court on the followingquestions:-
2 "1. Does the proper interpretation of s. 6(1) of the Criminal Justice ( Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1997, require the District Court to be satisfied that a person has been arrested otherwise than under a warrant prior to admitting in evidence the certificate referred to therein?
2. If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, does the proper interpretation of s. 6(1) of the Criminal Justice ( Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1997, require oral evidence of the nature of the arrest to be given, prior to or at the time the certificate is given in evidence?
3. If the answers to questions 1 and 2 are in the affirmative, does the District Court have jurisdiction to make any further order in criminal proceedings where a certificate wasadmitted in purported compliance with s. 6(1) of the said Act of 1997 in circumstances where no evidence of the nature of the arrest wasgiven?"
In fact two certificates were submitted: one dealt with the arrest and caution and the other one with the charge but, as recited by the learned High Court judge, nothing turns on this matter. The only issue in the case is whether evidence has to be adduced that the accused has been arrested otherwise than under a warrant.
The learned High Court judge concluded:-
"The primary rule in construing a section of any statute is that the court must interpret the statute in accordance with the plain and ordinary meaning of the words used in it. This section permits a certificate to be admissible as evidence of three specified matters, namely, the arrest, the charge and the caution. These are three matters which heretofore had to be proved by oral evidence. The legislature decided that this relaxation of the laws of evidence should only apply where the accused was arrested otherwise than under a warrant, and therefore if the accused was arrested under a warrant, the certificate is not admissible as evidence of these matters. In fact the two certificates presented in this case did not state that the accused had been arrested otherwise than under a warrant, but even if they had so stated, that statement is not a matter which, under the section, is admissible as evidence. I think the section is quite clear and unambiguous, and that it is a condition precedent to the admissibility of the evidence that theaccused has been arrested otherwise than under a warrant. This seems to me to be an essential proof of prosecution, and furthermore a proof which must be adduced before the certificate is submitted. The prosecution must prove its case, and therefore must prove that the circumstances exist which make the certificate admissible."
As far as the instant case is concerned, it is clear that the accused was arrested and brought to Store Street garda station pursuant to the provisions of s. 31 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967, which so far as is material, provides:-
2 "(1) Whenever a person is brought in custody to a gardasíochána station by a member of the gardasíochána, the sergeant or other member in charge of the station may, if he considers it prudent to do so and no warrant directing the detention of that person is in force, release him on bail and for that purpose take from him a recognisance, with or without sureties, for his due appearance...
To continue reading
Request your trial