Feeney v District Justice Clifford

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Barr
• Judgment Date: 14 November 1988
• Neutral Citation: 1988 WJSC-HC 2195
• Docket Number: No. 62 J.R./1988,[1988 No. 62 J.R.]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 14 November 1988

1988 WJSC-HC 2195

THE HIGH COURT

No. 62 J.R./1988

FEENEY v. CLIFFORD

(JUDICIAL REVIEW)

BETWEEN:

THE STATE (KIERAN FEENEY)

APPLICANT

AND

DISTRICT JUSTICE JOHN P. CLIFFORD

RESPONDENT

Citations:

O'HAGAN, STATE V DELAP 1983 ILRM 241

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1951 S2(2)(a)

Synopsis:

DISTRICT COURT

Jurisdiction

Criminal case —— Summary trial —— Scheduled offence —— Opinion of District Justice —— Offence charged a minor offence fit to be tried summarily —— Adoption of summary trial —— New fact discovered —— Change of opinion —— Summary trial abandoned —— Intention to return defendant for trial on indictment —— ~See~ Criminal Law, jurisdiction —— (1988/62 JR —— Barr J. —— ( 14/11/88) E[1988] I.R. 499

|The State (Feeney) v. Clifford|

CRIMINAL LAW

Jurisdiction

Summary trial —— Scheduled offence —— District Court —— Minor offence —— Opinion of District Justice —— Adoption of summary trial —— Discovery of new fact —— Change of opinion —— Summary trial abandoned —— Accused to be returned for trial on indictment —— Validity of return for trial —— Section 2, sub—s. 2, of the Act of 1951 provides that a District Justice may try summarily a person charged with a scheduled offence if the District Justice is of opinion that the facts proved or alleged constitute a minor offence fit to be so tried, and if the accused, on being informed by the court of his right to be tried with a jury, does not object to being tried summarily —— Sub—section 3 of that section states that the section shall not prevent the court from sending forward a person for trial for a scheduled offence —— The applicant appeared in the District Court before the respondent District Justice on 22/2/88 charged with having damaged a motor vehicle maliciously on 24/6/87 in such manner that its repair would cost #5,000 —— The offence charged was a scheduled offence within the meaning of s. 2 of the Act of 1951 —— The respondent was invited to decide whether the offence was a minor offence within the meaning of that section —— The prosecutor described to the respondent the circumstances and nature of the offence which would be proved and the respondent then formed the opinion that the offence charged was such minor offence —— The respondent then informed the applicant of his right to be tried by a jury and the applicant stated that he wished to be tried summarily by the respondent on the said charge —— The applicant pleaded guilty to the charge —— The prosecutor then informed the respondent of the criminal record of the applicant and said that the applicant was then serving a sentence of two years imprisonment which had been imposed on 28/7/87 and was also serving a term of 18 months imprisonment which had been imposed on 24/11/87 —— On learning of those facts, the respondent intimated that he had been thinking of imposing a sentence of two years imprisonment for the offence charged but that he was unable to do so —— The respondent then came to the conclusion that, although he had been of the opinion that the offence charged was a minor one, the said offence was not an offence fit to be tried summarily pursuant to s. 2, sub—s. 2, of the Act of 1951, and that the applicant should be returned for trial on indictment —— The respondent then adjourned the proceedings —— Having obtained leave, the applicant applied to the High Court for an order of prohibition forbidding the respondent to return the applicant for trial on indictment —— Held, in dismissing the application, that the respondent was entitled, in the said circumstances, to come to the conclusion that the facts alleged and admitted did not constitute an offence fit to be tried summarily within the meaning of s. 2, sub—s. 2, of the Act of 1951: ~The State (0'Hagan) v. Delap~ [1983] ILRM 241 considered. Held that the applicant's complaint that his plea of guilty had been induced by the prospect of a summary trial was not a valid complaint as he would not be bound by that plea when he was arraigned on indictment —— Criminal Justice Act, 1951, ss. 2, 5 —— (1988/62 JR —— Barr J. —— 14/11/88) E1988 I.R. 499

|The State (Feeney) v. Clifford|

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Barr delivered the 14th day of November, 1988.

2 The facts of this case are not in dispute. The applicant appeared before the learned respondent at Cork District Court on 22nd February, 1988 charged with four offences. Two concerned malicious damage to motor vehicles in the sum of £5,000 and £500 respectively. The third offence related to unlawful possession of a motor vehicle (being that which was the subject matter of the first malicious damage charge). The fourth charge concerned malicious damage to a gate in the sum of £1,500. All of the offences were alleged to have been committed on 24th June, 1987 and are interrelated. They are also scheduled offences as defined in the Criminal Justice Act, 1951.

3 When the charges came on for hearing the learned respondent was invited to decide whether or not they constituted minor offences fit to be tried summarily. The facts relating to the offences were outlined to the court by the prosecuting garda officer and on that information the respondent decided that they were minor offences which he might try summarily provided that the applicant agreed to that course. The applicant's rights in the matter were duly explained to him and he acceded to the jurisdiction of the District Court. He also pleaded guilty to each of the offences charged. The respondent was informed by a garda records officer that the accused was then serving a...