DPP v Sheeran

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Gannon
• Judgment Date: 09 May 1986
• Neutral Citation: 1986 WJSC-HC 589
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: No. 33 S.S./1986
• Date: 09 May 1986

DPP v. SHEERAN

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

APPELLANT

.v.

JOHN SHEERAN

RESPONDENT

1986 WJSC-HC 589

No. 33 S.S./1986

THE HIGH COURT

Synopsis:

CRIMINAL LAW

Complaint

Essentials - Summary jurisdiction - Foundation - Time when complaint made - Complaint to be made within six months from time when cause of complaint arose - Complaint made on 9th June 1984 to peace commissioner - Summons issued on that date but not served - Second summons issued on 2nd August 1984 by another peace commissioner on foot of complaint made to him - Charge in second summons dismissed by District Justice - Dismissal on ground that second summons issued more than six months after cause of complaint (23rd December 1983) and in response to second complaint made to another peace commissioner - First complaint made within period of six months from cause of that complaint - Held that from the circumstances it appeared that the offence in the charge dismissed by the District Justice was the offence alleged in the first complaint, which had been made to an authorised person within the period permitted by the Act of 1851 - Held that the issue of the second summons by another peace commissioner did not affect the exercise of the jurisdiction of the District Court - Held, accordingly, that the District Justice should not have dismissed the charge, mentioned in the second summons, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction - Petty Sessions (Ir.) Act, 1851, s.10 - (1986/33 SS - Gannon J. - 9/5/86) - [1986] ILRM 579

|Director of Public Prosecutions v. Sheeran|

Citations:

AG V CONLON 1937 IR 762

COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT 1924 S77(b)

DCR 1948 O.44

DCR 1948 r30

DCR 1948 r34

DCR 1948 r64

DCR 1948 r29

DCR 1948 r45

DIXON V WELLS 25 QBD 249

DPP V CLEIN 1983 ILRM 76, 1981 ILRM 465

DPP V GILL 1980 IR 263

DPP V MCQUAID UNREP MURPHY 26.10.84 1984/6/1968

HEMPENSTALL, STATE V SHANNON 1936 IR 326

MCDONNELL, AG V HIGGINS 1964 IR 374

MIN AGRICULTURE V NORGRO 1980 IR 155

MOLLOY JUSTICE OF THE PEACE 2ED V1 P227

NUN & WALSH JUSTICE OF THE PEACE 2ED P472

PALEY CONVICTIONS 1ED P14

PETTY SESSIONS (IRL) ACT 1851 S10

PETTY SESSIONS (IRL) ACT 1851 S10(4)

R V WATFORD JUSTICES, EX PARTE OUTRIM 1983 RTR 26 1982 CRIM LR 593

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMDT) ACT 1978 S21

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMDT) ACT 1978 S22

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S33

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S38

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S40

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S49

SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT 1857 S2

Case Stated by A. O'Reilly District Justice

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Gannondelivered the 9th day of May 1986

2 This is a Case Stated by District Justice Aodhgain O'Reilly pursuant to section 2 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1857 at the request of the Director of Public Prosecutions following the determination by the District Justice on the 24th of July 1985 to dismiss four charges against the Respondent laid in four summonses which were issued by a Peace Commissioner Arnold Crawford on the 2nd of August 1984. The offences charged in the summonses were contraventions of sections 33, 38, 40 and 49 of the Road Traffic Act 1961as amended, alleged to have taken place on the 23rd of December 1983 within the District Court area and district in the jurisdiction both of the said Peace Commissioner and of the said District Justice.

3 It would appear from the Case Stated, in which are set out the evidence heard, the arguments submitted, and the facts found, that the ground for the decision to dismiss the chargeswas that the summonses before the Court were issued more than six months after the date upon which the offences alleged were committed and in response to complaints then made to the Peace Commissioner by whom the summonses were issued.

4 It would appear from the Case Stated that no evidence was offered by or on behalf of the Respondent before the District Justice, that none of the evidence given in support of the charges was controverted, that there was no controversy on matters of fact requiring resolution by the District Justice, and that all the facts stated by the District Justice as set out in the Case Stated were admitted whether formally proved or merely agreed. The relevant facts are to be found in paragraphs 1, 3 and 5 of the Case Stated which are as follows

5 2 "1. At a sitting of the District Court held at Mountmellick on the 26th day of September 1984 the said Director of Public Prosecutions (hereinafter referred to as "the Appellant") charged the said John Sheeran (hereinafter referred to as "the Respondent") that:-."

6 (The Case Stated here sets out the four offences under the Road Traffic Act alleged to have been committed on the 23rd of December 1983 at Cloneygowan, Ballyfin, Co. Laois in the Court area and Districtaforesaid).

7 3 "3. Evidence on behalf of the Appellant was adduced by a number of witnesses including Garda Noel E. Murphy Portlaoise Garda Station who exhibited forms and certificate as provided by section 21 and section 22 of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act 1978. The certificate issued pursuant to section 22 showed aconcentration of 144 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of urine. No objection was made to this form and certificate.

8 5. Copies of the summonses bearing date 2nd August 1984 were produced On the application of Inspector Morris, I granted a short adjournment to enable him to discuss the matter with Sergeant Marshall who had charge of the case. He informed Inspector Morris that the complaints had originally been laid on 9th June 1984 within the statutory period of six months. After a short interval these summonses were produced to the Court."

9 The arguments advanced before the District Justice are to be found in paragraphs 4, 6 and 10 of the Case Stated and they are as follows:-

10 2 "4. When the evidence on behalf of the Appellant had concluded solicitor for the Respondent applied to me for a dismissal of all charges on the grounds that the summonses (all of them) as before the Court were not issued within the statutory period of six months from the date of the alleged offence namely the 23rd of December 1983. Copies of the summonses, bearing date 2nd August 1984 were produced.

11 6. A further objection was then made by Respondent's solicitor on the grounds that (a) these last mentioned summonses had never been served, (b) they had never been listed for hearing, (c) they were not before the Court and (d) no reference was made to them in the summonses which were before the Courtand, finally, that the summonses which issued on the 2nd August 1984 were signed and issued by one Peace Commissioner namely Arnold Crawford on foot of a complaint made to him whereas the summonses which issued on the 9th of June 1984 were signed by another Peace Commissioner Michael Poole P.C.

12 10. The Respondent's solicitor repeated her argument and cited the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, Rules 29 and 45 of the District Court Rules Dixon .v. Wells 1890 O.R. .v. WatfordJustices. The Minister for Agriculture .v. NorgroLimited."

13 From these statements of facts and arguments it is evident that the fundamental issue in dispute was a question of fact as to the time of commission of the offences alleged in relation to the time of receipt of the complaint thereof, and not a matter of mere procedure. The basic and essential fact therefore is whether or not the complaints upon which the charges before the Court were founded had been duly made within the six month period required by section X of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act1851.

14 The portion of section X of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act 1851 material to these proceedings is as follows:-

"...whenever a Complaint shall be made to any Justice as to any other Matter arising within the Limits of his Jurisdiction, upon which he shall have Power to make a Summary Order, it shall be lawful for such Justice to receive such Information or Complaint, and to proceed in respect to the same, subject to the followingprovisions:-...."

15 4. In all Cases of Summary Jurisdiction the Complaint shall be made, .... within Six Months from the Time when the Cause of Complaint shall have arisen, but not otherwise:

16 And in all Cases of Summary Jurisdiction any Person against whom any such Information or Complaint shall have been made in Writingshall,... be entitled to receive from the Clerk... a Copy of such Information or Complaint,... and such Clerk shall in no Case allow the original Information or Complaint to be taken out of hisProssession."

17 The Case Stated does not disclose whether the complaints were made in writing or orally. Because no originals thereof were produced it would seem proper to assume the complaint upon which the summonses were issued on the 9th of June 1984 was made orally at the time of the issue of those summonses and to the Peace Commissioner Michael Poole by whom they were issued. It would follow that the only evidence before the District Court of the nature and terms of such complaint is the contents of those summonses. From the Case Stated it would appear that a complaint appropriate to those summonses which were issued on the 9th of June 1984 had in fact been made and that the statement by Sergeant Marshall to Inspector Morris was adopted as sufficient evidence of such fact. The Case Stated does not disclose whether in fact any complaint was made to Peace Commissioner Arnold Crawford by whom the summonses dated the 2nd of August 1984 were issued nor what form of complaint if any was made to and considered by Peace Commissioner Arnold Crawford for the purpose of the issue by him of those summonses. It may be assumed that the contents of the summonses issued by Peace Commissioner Arnold Crawfordconformed to whatever was stated to him. He may have been asked to issue summonses to correspond with those issued by Peace Commissioner Michael Poole on the 9th of June 1984 because such had not been served, or had lapsed, or had been struck out. Alternatively, he may not have been told of the summonses...