National Authority for Safety and Health v Fingal County Council

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr Justice Francis D Murphy
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1997
• Neutral Citation: 1996 WJSC-HC 4258
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: [1995 No. 1107 SS]
• Date: 01 January 1997

THE NATIONAL AUTHORITY OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY v. FINGAL CO COUNCIL

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 52 OF THE COURTS

(SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACT, 1961

BETWEEN:

THE NATIONAL AUTHORITY FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY ANDHEALTH

Prosecutor

AND

FINGAL COUNTY COUNCIL

Respondents

1996 WJSC-HC 4258

NO. 1107SS/1995

THE HIGH COURT

Synopsis:

CRIMINAL LAW

Proceedings

Commencement - Summons - Issue - Time limits - Distinction - ~Generalia specialibus non derogant~ - Section of enactment provided for summary prosecution of certain offences - One sub-section provided time limit of 12 months for commencement of summary prosecutions of offences under the Act - Another sub-section provided another time limit for commencement of summary prosecution of those offences in particular circumstances - Prosecution of defendant out of time since particular sub-section, applying shorter time limit, was applicable and excluded application of general sub-section - Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 1989 (No. 7), s. 51 - (1995/1107 SS - Murphy J. - 4/7/96) - [1997] 1 ILRM 128

|National Authority for Occupational Safety and Health v. Fingal

County Council|

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

Prosecution

Commencement - Summons - Issue - Time limits - Distinction - ~Generalia specialibus non derogant~ - Section of enactment provided for summary prosecution of certain offences - One sub-section provided time limit of 12 months for commencement of summary prosecutions of offences under the Act - Another sub-section provided another time limit for commencement of summary prosecution of those offences in particular circumstances - Prosecution of defendant out of time since particular sub-section, applying shorter time limit, was applicable and excluded application of general sub-section - (1995/1107 SS - Murphy J. - 4/7/96) - [1997] 1 ILRM 128

|National Authority for Occupational Safety and Health v. Fingal

County Council|

WORDS AND PHRASES

"Generalia specialibus non derogant"

Prosecution - Commencement - Summons - Issue - Time limits - Distinction - Section of enactment provided for summary prosecution of certain offences - One sub-section provided time limit of 12 months for commencement of summary prosecutions of offences under the Act - Another sub-section provided another time limit for commencement of summary prosecution of those offences in particular circumstances - Prosecution of defendant out of time since particular sub-section, applying shorter time limit, was applicable and excluded application of general sub-section - (1995/1107 SS - Murphy J. - 4/7/96) [1997] 1 ILRM 128

|National Authority for Occupational Safety and Health v. Fingal

County Council|

Citations:

COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACT 1961 S52

SAFETY HEALTH & WELFARE AT WORK ACT 1989 S51

SAFETY HEALTH & WELFARE AT WORK ACT 1989 PART III

SAFETY HEALTH & WELFARE AT WORK ACT 1989 S48

SAFETY HEALTH & WELFARE AT WORK ACT 1989 S51(3)

SAFETY HEALTH & WELFARE AT WORK ACT 1989 S51(4)

PETTY SESSIONS (IRL) ACT 1851 S10(4)

COURTS (NO 3) ACT 1986

SAFETY HEALTH & WELFARE AT WORK ACT 1989 S51(4)(c)

HALSBURYS LAWS OF ENGLAND 4ED PARA 875

HUTCH V GOV OF WHEATFIELD PRISON UNREP SUPREME 17.11.92

SUMMARY JURISDICTION OVER CHILDREN (IRL) ACT 1884 S5

CHILDRENS ACT 1941

SUMMARY JURISDICTION OVER CHILDREN (IRL) ACT 1884 S51

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1951 S2

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1967 S19

SUMMARY JURISDICTION OVER CHILDREN (IRL) ACT 1884 S5(1)

WELCH V BOWMAKER (IRL) LTD 1980 IR 251

DUBLIN CO COUNCIL V HILL 1992 ILRM 397

LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1963 S35

LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1963 S31

REG V HORSHAM JJ 1982 QBD 762

CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT 1981 S4(2) (UK)

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1967

SAFETY HEALTH & WELFARE AT WORK ACT 1989 S46

SAFETY HEALTH & WELFARE AT WORK ACT 1989 S47

SAFETY HEALTH & WELFARE AT WORK ACT 1989 S51(4)(a)

SAFETY HEALTH & WELFARE AT WORK ACT 1989 S51(4)(b)

SAFETY HEALTH & WELFARE AT WORK ACT 1989 S51(4)(c)

SUMMARY JURISDICTION OVER CHILDREN (IRL) ACT 1884

1 Judgment of Mr Justice Francis D Murphydelivered the 4th day of July 1996.

2 This is a consultative case stated by Judge Hogan a judge of the District Court assigned to the Dublin Metropolitan District, pursuant to Section 52 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961 for the opinion of the High Court.

3 The case stated raises an important question as to the proper construction and application of Section 51 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 1989(The 1989 Act).

4 The 1989 Act was enacted, as the title thereto explains, to make further provision for securing the safety, health and welfare of persons at work, for protecting others against risks to safety or health in connection with the activities of persons at work, for the establishment of a national authority for occupational safety and health, to provide for the regulation of dangerous substances insofar as they might affect persons or property and for other matters connected therewith.

5 Section 15 of the 1989 Act provided for the setting up of a body to be known as The National Authority for Occupational Safety and Health (in the Act and hereinafter referred to as "the Authority") to perform the functions assigned to it by the Act. Part 3 of the 1989 Act conferred a variety of powers and functions on the Authority and Section 51 of the Act expressly provided that summary offences under the Act might be prosecuted by the Authority. The scheme of the Act was to impose certain duties and obligations on employers to ensure, as far is reasonably practicable, the safety, health and welfare at work of his employees. Section 48 of the Act makes it an offence for a person to fail to discharge a wide range of the duties to which he may be subject by virtue of various provisions of the Act.

6 It is the time limit within which such prosecutions must be initiated which gives rise to the problem herein. The relevant statutory provisions are sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 51 of the Act which provide as follows:-

7 2 "(3) Notwithstanding section 10(4) of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, proceedings for any offence under any of the relevant statutory provisions may be instituted at any time within one year after the date of the offence.

8 (4) Where:-

9 (a) a special report on any matter to which section 46 of this Act applies is made; or

10 (b) a report is made by a person holding an inquiry into any matter by virtue of section 47; or

11 (c) a coroner's inquest is held concerning the death of any person whose death may have been caused by an accident which happened while he was at work or by a disease which he contracted or probably contracted at work or by an accident, act or omission which occurred in connection withthe work of any person whatsoever;

12 and it appears from the report or, in a case falling within paragraph (c) from the proceedings at the inquest, that any of the relevant statutory provisions was contravened at a time which is material in relation to the subject matter of the report or inquest, summary proceedings against any person liable to be proceeded against in respect of the contravention may be commenced at any time within six months of the making of the report or, in a case falling within paragraph (c), within six months of the conclusion of theinquest."

13 The relevant facts in the present case as found by the learned Judge of the District Court are as follows. The Fingal County Council (the Respondents) are the occupiers of premises at Balelally Tip Head, Lusk, in the County of Dublin which were used as a dump for the disposal of domestic waste. On the 29th of April 1993 an accident occurred at the dump which resulted in the death of one Aidan Doyle. An inquest was held into the death of the late Aidan Doyle by the Coroner for the County of the City of Dublin which inquest recorded its verdict on the 7th day of October 1993. On the 22nd of April 1994 anapplication was made by the Authority to the Clerk of the District Court for the Dublin Metropolitan District pursuant to the Courts (No. 3) Act 1986 for the issue of summonses to the Council in relation to offences allegedly arising out of the accident of the 29th of April 1993. Six summonses were issued in relation to the matter on the 22nd of April 1994. On behalf of the Respondents it was argued in the District Court that the time limit for instituting the proceeding was governed by Section 51 (4) (c) as the charges arose out of or "were intimately connected with" the death of the said Aidan Doyle and that accordingly the time limit for instituting the proceedings was within six months from the conclusion of the inquest, that is to say, not later than the 7th day of April 1994 and...