Minister for Defence v Buckley

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 14 July 1975
• Date: 14 July 1975
• Docket Number: [S.C. No. 112 of 1974]
• Court: Supreme Court

Supreme Court

[S.C. No. 112 of 1974]

Minister for Defence v. Buckley

The Minister for Defence

Complainant

and

Matthew Buckley, Denis Halpin and Andrew Lawlor

Defendants

Cases mentioned in this report:—

¹ Sturla v. Freccia (1880) 5 App. Cas. 623, 643.

Evidence - Admissibility - Map - Public document - Criminal offence - Proof - Prima facie evidence - Curragh Bye-Laws, 1964 (S.I. No. 7). art. 5 - Curragh of Kildare Act, 1961 (No. 35), ss. 1, 6 - Curragh of Kildare Act, 1969 (No. 13), ss. 1,2,5,6.

Case Stated

A Case was stated on the 14th May, 1973, for the opinion of the Supreme Court, pursuant to the provisions of s. 16 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1947, by His Honour Judge K. E. L. Deale, being then a judge of the Circuit Court assigned to the Eastern Circuit and sitting at Naas in the county of Kildare, on an application made by the complainant in the following circumstances.

On the 15th June, 1972, the three defendants appeared before District Justice Carr, sitting at Newbridge in the county of Kildare. The defendant Buckley was charged that on the 8th September, 1971, at Rabbit Hill, the Green Lands, Curragh of Kildare within the District Court area of Droichead Nua, District No. 16, he (a) did keep sheep on the said lands without lawful authority contrary to s. 2, sub-s. 1 (b), of the Curragh of Kildare Act, 1969; (b)did graze sheep on the said lands without lawful authority contrary to s. 2, sub-s. 1(b), of the Act of 1969, and (c) did have sheep on the said lands without lawful authority, contrary to s. 2, sub-s. 1(a), of the Act of 1969.

The defendants Halpin and Lawlor were charged with having committed precisely identical offences on the same date and within the same District Court area—the defendant Halpin at Knocknagorm, the Blue Lands, Curragh of Kildare and the defendant Lawlor at the Military Rifle Range, the Blue Lands, Curragh of Kildare.

Each of the three defendants was convicted on each of the three charges preferred against him, and was fined £5.00 on each charge. The three defendants appealed to the Circuit Court, and the appeals came on for hearing before His Honour Judge Deale at Naas on the 14th May, 1973.

The following facts were proved or admitted at the hearing of the appeal in the Circuit Court:—

(a) Thomas Fitzpatrick and Peter McDonnell, the official Maor (head bailiff) and Fomhaor (under bailiff) respectively, were at all material times employed by the Minister for Defence to exercise the powers and perform the duties in relation to sheep on the Curragh of Kildare conferred or imposed by bye-law 5 of the Curragh Bye-Laws, 1964 (S.I. No. 7) as amended by the Curragh of Kildare Act, 1969.

(b) On an unspecified date in August, 1971, Peter McDonnell had found sheep on divers parts of the lands of the Curragh of Kildare. He had identified the sheep on one part as belonging to the defendant Buckley; those on another part as belonging to the defendant Halpin; and those on yet another part as belonging to the defendant Lawlor.

(c) None of the said sheep was branded with the official brand as designated by Thomas Fitzpatrick, Maor.

(d) Neither the said Maor nor the Fomhaor had at any time given any of the defendants permission to have or to keep or to graze sheep on the Curragh of Kildare in that particular month.

(e) Counsel for the defendants applied to have the prosecutions dismissed as the facts proved were not shown to have occurred on the date on which the offences were laid (8th September, 1971); counsel for the complainant applied to have the summonses amended to lay each offence charged as having taken place on a date unknown in August, 1971, and the Circuit Court judge amended the summonses accordingly.

(f) A copy of the map described in the Curragh of Kildare Act, 1961, as"the deposited map" was produced in court and McDonnell pointed out on the copy map the respective places at or near which he had found each defendant's sheep. He pointed out a place on the said map within the portion coloured green as the place where he had found the defendant Buckley's sheep, and two places on the map within the portion coloured blue as the places where he had found the sheep of the defendant Halpin and the defendant Lawlor respectively.

(g) No other evidence was given that the place where the defendant Buckley's sheep were found was part of the Green Lands, nor that the places where the other...