Hegarty v District Justice Fitzpatrick
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Murphy |
| Judgment Date | 06 March 1990 |
| Neutral Citation | 1990 WJSC-HC 758 |
| Docket Number | [1988 No. 250 J.R.],No. 250/1988 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 06 March 1990 |
1990 WJSC-HC 758
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
Citations:
ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S49(3)
ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S49(4)(a)
ROAD TRAFFIC (AMDT) ACT 1978
DISTRICT COURT (COURTS ACT 1971) RULES 1972 RULE 4
DISTRICT COURT (COURTS ACT 1971) RULES 1972 RULE 5
DCR r64(5)
PETTY SESSIONS (IRL) ACT 1851 S20
PETTY SESSIONS ACT 1851 S21
PETTY SESSIONS (IRL) ACT 1851 S20(4)
PETTY SESSIONS (IRL) ACT 1851 S24
DCR r83
DCR r84
DCR r85
DISTRICT COURT RULES 1955 SI 83/1955 RULE 9
DISTRICT COURT RULES 1955 SI 83/1955 RULE 10
COURTS ACT 1971 S14
FRIEL V MCMENAMIN 1990 2 IR 210
Synopsis:
CRIMINAL LAW
Trial
Evidence - Judge's note - Copy - Refusal - Defendant without right to obtain copy - Summary offence - Trial and conviction in District Court - Failure of District Justice to take note of evidence - Conviction valid - (1988/250 JR - Murphy J. - 6/3/90)
|Hegarty v. Fitzpatrick|
DISTRICT COURT
Evidence
Note - Copy - Procurement - Request refused - Defendant without right to obtain copy - Summary offence - Trial and conviction in District Court - Failure of District Justice to take note of evidence - Conviction valid - (1988/250 JR - Murphy J. - 6/3/90)
|Hegarty v. Fitzpatrick|
EVIDENCE
Note
Copy - Request - District Justice - Refusal - Trial of summary offence - Former right of defendant to obtain copy note - Right granted by rules of court - Right abolished by Rules Committee - Competence of committee in field of practice and procedure - Abolition valid - District Court Rules, 1948, rr. 84, 85 - District Court Rules, 1955, rr. 9, 10 - District Court (Courts Act, 1971) Rules, 1972, r. 4 - Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, s. 20 - Courts of Justice Act, 1924, s. 91 - (1988/250 JR - Murphy J. - 6/3/90)
|Hegarty v. Fitzpatrick|
Judgment of Mr. Justice Murphy delivered the 6th day of March 1990
On the 11th day of February 1988 at the sitting of the District Court held at Buncrana County Donegal the Respondent heard a complaint that the Applicant Joseph Hegarty of 32 Leenan Gardens, Creggan, Derry, County Derry in Northern Ireland did on the 31st day of January 1987 at Ballymacarry Lower Buncrana County Donegal drive a particular mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place "while there was in his body a quantity of alcohol such that within three hours after so driving the concentration of alcohol in his urine exceeded a concentration of 135 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of urine contrary to Section 49 (3) and (4) (a) of the Road Traffic Act 1961as inserted by Section 10 of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act 1978/ 84". The Applicant was convicted of the offence and ordered to pay a fine of £600 or in default imprisonment for a period of 90 days. The Applicant was further disqualified from holding a driving licence for a period of 12 months.
On the 10th day of August 1988 the Applicant sought and obtained leave to apply by way of an application for Judicial Review:-
(a) An Order of Certiorari in respect of the conviction and Order dated the 18th of February 1988 aforesaid and
(b) A Declaration that the District Court Rules Committee acted ultra vires in purporting to make Rules 4 and 5 of the District Court (Courts Act 1971) Rules 1972.
The leave of the Court was granted on the grounds set out in the Notice of Application which may be summarized under three headings as follows:-
(1) That the District Court Rules Committee acted ultra vires, in excess of its statutory authority and in contravention of the provisions of the Constitution in making certain rules for the District Court to wit, Rules 4 and 5 of the District Court (Courts Act 1971) Rules 1972.
(2) That the Respondent District Justice acted contrary to the provisions of Section XX of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act 1851 and Rule 64 (5) of the Rules of the District Court 1948 "in failing to keep a proper note of evidence in the book kept for that purpose" when required so to do by the Solicitor on behalf of the Applicant and that accordingly the Applicant was denied the natural and constitutional justice to which he was entitled in the conduct of the proceedings before the Court.
(3) That there was no adequate proof of the complaint on which the charge was based.
The Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act 1851 Section 20 subsection (4) (which is for all practical purposes identical with subparagraph (5) of Rule 64 of the District Court Rules 1948 as originally made) provides as follows:-
"Whenever any Justices shall proceed to hear and determine any Complaint or Information as to an Offence, they, or One of them, shall, when required so to do by either Party, or his Agent, take or cause to be taken a Note in Writing of the Evidence, or of so much thereof as shall be material, in a Book to be kept for that Purpose by the Clerk of Petty Sessions, and which Book shall be signed by One of the Justices by whom such Information or Complaint shall have been heard on the Day on which the same shall have been determined".
In addition to the statutory obligation to take a note in writing of evidence, certain other obligations were imposed on Justices by the 1851 Act with regard to the record of their decisions. The Petty Sessions Act Section 21 provides that one of the Justices present at the hearing should enter or cause the Clerk to enter the particulars of the case and the substance of the decision in a book to be kept for that purpose and to be called the "Order Book". Section 21 goes on to provide that either party to the proceedings should be entitled to obtain a Certificate in a prescribed form of the Order made by the District Justice. It further provided that the Certificate, on proof of the signature of the Justice to the same, should be received as good evidence of the conviction or Order in all Courts of Justice. A Certificate was also required for the purposes of an appeal pursuant to Section 24 of the 1851 Act.
The procedure with regard to recording decisions of a District Justice and drawing up copies of Orders made by them was dealt with in the District Court Rules 1948 in Rules 83 and 84 thereof. The procedure was similar but not identical with that set out in the 1851 Act. By Rule 83 the District Court Clerk was required to keep a book to be known as the "Justice's Minute Book" in which he was required to enter all the cases which were to be heard at the sittings of the Court for a particular area...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
G.B. v DPP
...give evidence of her intention to base the application on her first application for a summons: see Hegarty v. District Judge Fitzpatrick [1990] 2 IR 377. 43 . Finally, it was submitted that the question of whether the time limit was complied with, was a matter of defence, which should be ra......