Lennon v District Justice Clifford

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: O'Hanlon J.
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1993
• Neutral Citation: 1992 WJSC-HC 2217
• Docket Number: No. 129/1992,[1992 No. 129 JR]
• Date: 01 January 1993

LENNON v. CLIFFORD

Judicial Review

BETWEEN

JOHN V. LENNON

APPLICANT

AND

DISTRICT JUDGE JOHN P. CLIFFORD AND THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

RESPONDENTS

1992 WJSC-HC 2217

No. 129/1992

THE HIGH COURT

Synopsis:

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Remedy

Scope - Restriction - Certiorari - Tribunal - Facts - Findings - Proof that taxpayer was a chargeable person - Certificate of inspector of taxes - Statute placing onus of disproof on taxpayer - District Court's finding of fact not proper subject for judicial review - Finance Act, 1988, s. 10 (1992/129 JR - O'Hanlon J. - 26/6/92) - [1992] 1 I.R. 382 - [1993] ILRM 77

|Lennon v. Clifford|

Citations:

FINANCE ACT 1988 S9(1)

FINANCE ACT 1983 S94(2)(e)

FINANCE ACT 1988 S10(10)

FINANCE ACT 1991 S46

HALSBURY'S LAWS 3ED V11 PARA 119

CHIEF CONSTABLE OF NORTH WALES V EVANS 1982 3 AER 141

RIDGE V BALDWIN 1964 AC 40

1 Judgement delivered by O'Hanlon J., the 26th June, 1992.

2 The Applicant was convicted before the first-named Respondent sitting at Cork on the 30th April, 1992, on two charges under the Finance Act, 1988, Section 9(1), that being a chargeable person within the meaning of that section as respects the chargeable periods, being the years of assessment 1988/89 and 1989/90, he failed to deliver to the appropriate Inspector a return in the prescribed form for Income Tax for such chargeable periods, on or before the relevant specified return dates in each case, contrary to Section 94 (2) (e) of the Finance Act, 1983. He was fined a sum of £400 in respect of each of the said charges.

3 He seeks in these proceedings an Order quashing the said two Orders of the District Court, in reliance on an affidavit sworn by the Applicant in which he deposes that the only evidence given in support of the charges was a certificate pursuant to Section 10 (10) of the Finance Act, 1988, as amended, signed by P.O. Cahill, therein described as an Inspector of Taxes, certifying that the Applicant was a chargeable person within the meaning of the Acts in respect of the relevant chargeable periods and that he had failed to prepare and deliver to him (being the appropriate Inspector) a return in the prescribed form within the period prescribed by the Income Tax Acts.

4 Counsel for the Applicant claimed that the proofs were inadequate and that no evidence was given as to the nature of the prescribed form under the Acts, or to confirm that one had ever been prescribed.

5 It appears that the Applicant was unrepresented at the hearing before the District Court and when asked whether he had anything to say in answer to the charges he responded by submitting that he was not a "chargeable person" within the meaning of the Acts. He was asked if he wished to give evidence but did not do so and confined himself to the aforesaid submission.

6 The Respondents rely on the provisions of Section 10, subsection (10) of the Finance Act, 1988, which enables the certificate of the Inspector to be given in evidence without formal proof of same, as evidence until the contrary is proved that the chargeable person did not during the stated period deliver the return of income as required by the Acts. Such a certificate purporting to be signed by the Inspector shall be deemed until the contrary is...