Irish Insurance Commissioners, Appellants; Hamilton Respondent

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: K. B. Div.
• Judgment Date: 08 May 1913
• Court: King's Bench Division (Ireland)
• Date: 08 May 1913

Irish Insurance Commissioners

Appellants

and

Hamilton

Respondent (1)

K. B. Div.

CASES

DETERMINED BY

THE KING'S BENCH DIVISION

OF

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND,

AND ON APPEAL THEREFROM IN

THE COURT OF APPEAL,

AND BY

THE COURT FOR CROWN CASES RESERVED.

1913.

Justices — Jurisdiction — Summary Conviction — Offence under National Insurance Act, 1911 — Application of Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851 — Statute — Construction — Incorporation, rejecting inconsistent provision — National Insurance Act, 1911 (1 & 2 Geo. 5, c. 55), sect. 69, sub-sect. 2 — Fines Act (Ireland), 1851, Amendment Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 72), sect. 5 — Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851 (14 & 15 Vict. c. 93), sect. 42.

Held that, even assuming the National Insurance Act of 1911 to be within the description of the Acts referred to in sect. 42 of the Petty Sessions Act, the effect of sect. 69 of the Act of 1911, taken in conjunction with sect. 5 of the Act of 1874, was to incorporate with the Act of 1911 all the provisions of the Petty Sessions Act, except the 42nd section, in the same way as if there had been a provision that, notwithstanding the 42nd sect. of the Petty Sessions Act, the procedure prescribed that Act should apply to offences in Ireland within sect. 39, sub-sect. 2, of the National Insurance Act, 1911.

Quaere, Is the National Insurance Act, 1911, within the class of Acts referred to in sect. 42 of the Petty Sessions Act?

Case Stated under 20 & 21 Vict. c. 43.

At a petty sessions held in and for the petty sessions district of Newtownmountkennedy, county Wicklow, the respondent was charged as defendant in a summons in which the appellants were complainants, for that he, the defendant, being the employer of one Thomas Whelan, an employed contributor within the meaning of the National Insurance Act, 1911, did on the 16th day of September, 1912, fail to pay a contribution of fivepence-halfpenny, which under the said Act and the regulations thereunder he was liable to pay in respect of the said Thomas Whelan for the week commencing the 9th day of September, 1912.

It was admitted that the said Thomas Whelan was, on the 16th day of September, 1912, and at all material times, an employed contributor within the meaning of the National Insurance Act, 1911, employed by the defendant. His wages were paid weekly, and one week's wages were paid by the defendant to the said Thomas Whelan on the 16th day of September, 1912, in respect of the week then ending. No contribution within the meaning of the said Act was paid by the defendant by affixing a stamp to the card of the said Thomas Whelan in respect of the week so ending. A copy of the regulations made under sects. 7 and 65 of the Act was given in evidence.

The defendant contended that there was no jurisdiction in the justices to hear the complaint.

The justices were of opinion that they had no jurisdiction, and made an order that the case should be struck out and marked “no jurisdiction.” On the application of the complainants they stated the present case, requiring the judgment of the Court as to whether they were correct in point of law in their determination.

The Attorney-General (Molony, K.C.) (with him R. J. Sheehy), for the appellants:—

The justices at petty sessions had jurisdiction. The complaint is in respect of an offence under sect. 69, sub-sect. 2, of the National Insurance Act, 1911. That sub-section provides that the person guilty of the offence shall be liable to the fine therein mentioned “on summary conviction.” We submit that these words necessarily imply that the proceedings are to be taken before justices of the peace in a summary manner, and in accordance with the provisions of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851. In The Queen v. Unkles (1), the summons charged an offence under sect. 4 of the Ballot Act, 1872, which, by that section, was made punishable on summary conviction before two justices of the peace. It was held by Barry, Fitzgerald, and O'Brien, JJ., Whiteside, C.J., dissenting, that the procedure prescribed by the Petty Sessions Act, 1851, applied. The question raised in that case, as to the application of the Petty Sessions Act to offences created by subsequent enactments not expressly incorporating its provisions, was put beyond all doubt by sect. 5 of the Fines Act (Ireland), 1851, Amendment Act, 1874, which provides that where, by any Act then in force or thereafter to be passed, it is enacted that offences may be prosecuted in a summary manner, such offences may be prosecuted, with respect to parts of Ireland other than the police district of Dublin Metropolis, before a justice or justices of the peace sitting at petty sessions, subject and according to the provisions of the Petty Sessions Act, 1851. This provision covers the present...