Lennon v District Justice Clifford
Jurisdiction | Ireland |
Judge | Mr. Justice Francis D. Murphy |
Judgment Date | 23 May 1996 |
Neutral Citation | 1996 WJSC-SC 1573 |
Court | Supreme Court |
Docket Number | 239/92,[S.C. No. 239 of 1992] |
Date | 23 May 1996 |
1996 WJSC-SC 1573
THE SUPREME COURT
Hamilton C.J.,
O'Flaherty J.,
Murphy J.,
BETWEEN:
AND
Citations:
FINANCE ACT 1988 S9(1)
FINANCE ACT 1983 S94(2)(e)
INCOME TAX ACT 1967 S169
FINANCE ACT 1988 S10(1)
LENNON V CLIFFORD 1993 ILRM 77
FINANCE ACT 1988 S10(10)
FINANCE ACT 1991 S46
ROCHE V MARTIN 1993 ILRM 651
INCOME TAX ACT 1967 S165
Synopsis:
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Remedy
Scope - Restriction - Certiorari - Tribunal - Facts - Findings - Proof that taxpayer was a chargeable person - Certificate of inspector of taxes - Return of income in prescribed form not received by inspector - Statute placing onus of disproof on taxpayer - District Court's finding of fact not proper subject for judicial review - Finance Act, 1988 (No. 12), s. 10 - Finance Act, 1991 (No. 13), s. 46 - (239/92 - Supreme Court - 23/5/96)
|Lennon v. Clifford|
Judgment of Mr. Justice Francis D. Murphy delivered the 23rd day of May 1996. [nem diss]
The Applicant was convicted before the first respondent sitting at Cork on the 30th of March 1992 on two charges under the Finance Act 1988("The 1988 Act"), namely, that being a chargeable person within the meaning of Section 9 sub-section 1 of the 1988 Act 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 sub-section 2(e) of the Finance Act 1983. He was fined a sum of £400.00 in respect of each of the said charges.
Whilst the Applicant attended at the District Court and submitted that he was not a "chargeable person" within the meaning of the Finance Act 1983 he was not legally represented and did not purport to test any of the evidence tendered on behalf of the Prosecuting Authority. Nor did the Applicant appeal the convictions to the Circuit Court. Instead he applied for and was duly granted on the 6th of April 1992 leave to apply for an order of certiorari by way of an application for judicial review quashing the two orders aforesaid. The grounds on which the Applicant was given leave to apply for such relief were those comprised in paragraph (e) of his statement of grounds which, having recited the material facts, went on to claim as follows:-
"There was no evidence as to:-"
1. What exactly was a "prescribed form".
2. By what authority in pursuant to what statutory provision did the alleged form become a "prescribed form".
3. That any statement or notice was delivered to the Applicant pursuant to Section 169 of the Income Tax Act 1967 and Section 10(1) of the Finance Act 1988".
It was then contended that in the absence of such evidence the convictions and orders should not have been made and that in convicting the Applicant on the evidence before him the first named respondent had acted in excess of jurisdiction.
The application for judicial review was heard by Mr. Justice O'Hanlon and in his judgment delivered on the 22nd of June 1992 (reported in 1993 I.L.R.M. 77) he commented as follows:-
"—the High Court is not available as a Court of Appeal from decisions of other tribunals except where it is given such a function by statute, and that the scope for challenging the validity of orders made by lower courts by way of judicial review proceedings is confined to those cases where reliance can be placed on want of jurisdiction, or excess of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Farrelly v Devally
... ... CORK CC, STATE V FAWSITT UNREP MCMAHON 13.3.81 1981/1/143 LENNON V CLIFFORD & DPP 1993 ILRM 77 CHIEF CONSTABLE OF NORTH WALES POLICE ... 1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Morris delivered the 19 day of July, 1996 ... 2 The Applicant was convicted in Kilmainham District Court on the 8th March, 1993 of three offences as follows: ... 3 (a) On ... ...
- Kieran O'Donoghue v Judge James Paul McDonnell and Thomas Desmond Conway (notice party)
-
The Employment Equality Bill, 1996
...(Termination of Pregnancies) Bill, 1995 [1995] 1 I.R. 1. King v. The Attorney General [1981] I.R. 233. Lennon v. Judge Clifford [1996] 2 I.R. 590. Maher v. Attorney General [1973] I.R. 140; (1973) 108 I.L.T.R. 41. Massachusetts Board of Retirement, et al v. Murgia 427 U.S. 307. In re The Ma......
-
Sweeney v District Judge Fahy
...per O'Hanlon J. and the express approval of that statement of O'Hanlon J. by this Court on appeal in the same case, Lennon v. Clifford [1996] 2 I.R. 590 at p. 593 per Murphy J. Various other comments to like effect are also cited. 3.2 It has sometimes been said that judicial review is conce......