National Transport Authority v Express Bus Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Garrett Simons
• Judgment Date: 25 August 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] IEHC 560
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: 2021 No. 43 MCA

In the Matter of Section 2 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1857 (As Extended by Section 51 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961)

Between

National Transport Authority

Appellant

and

Express Bus Limited

Alan Martin

Kathleen Martin

Respondents

[2021] IEHC 560

2021 No. 43 MCA

THE HIGH COURT

Prosecution – Case stated – Enlargement of time – Appellant seeking an enlargement of time for the transmission of a case stated to the High Court – Whether the balance of justice lay against granting an enlargement of time

Facts: The respondents, Express Bus Ltd, Mr Martin and Ms Martin (the accused), were each charged with an offence contrary to the Public Transport Regulation Act 2009, namely, providing a public bus passenger service without a licence. The prosecution of the offences ultimately came on for hearing before the District Court on 21 March 2019. On that date, the accused were all acquitted of the alleged offences. The prosecutor, namely the National Transport Authority (the appellant), subsequently lodged an application with the District Court seeking to appeal the acquittals by way of a case stated. The appellant applied to enlarge time for the transmission of the case stated to the High Court, pursuant to Order 122, rule 7 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. The principal justification advanced for the delay involved an allegation that the Central Office of the High Court erred in refusing to accept the paperwork lodged.

Held by the High Court (Simons J) that the balance of justice lay against granting an enlargement of time, for the following reasons: first, the grant of an enlargement of time would prejudice the putative respondents to the appeal, i.e. the accused; secondly, the enlargement of time sought was a multiple of the prescribed time-limit; thirdly, in determining the application for an enlargement of time, it was legitimate to have regard to the overall conduct of the criminal prosecution by the National Transport Authority.

Simons J held that the application for an enlargement of time would be refused and the appeal by way of case stated was inadmissible by reason of delay and must be dismissed.

Application refused.

Appearances

Remy Farrell, SC and Diarmuid Collins for the appellant instructed by Coughlan White & Partners

Frank Crean for the respondents instructed by McGarr Solicitors

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Garrett Simons delivered on 25 August 2021

INTRODUCTION

1 This judgment is delivered in respect of an application to enlarge time for the transmission of a case stated to the High Court. The application is made pursuant to Order 122, rule 7 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. The principal justification advanced for the delay involves an allegation that the Central Office of the High Court erred in refusing to accept the paperwork lodged.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

2 This putative case stated arises out of a prosecution before the District Court. The three respondents to these proceedings (collectively, “ the accused”) had each been charged with an offence contrary to the Public Transport Regulation Act 2009, namely, providing a public bus passenger service without a licence. The charges relate to an incident on 30 September 2017 when, or so it is alleged, the accused provided a bus service to a music festival at Fairyhouse Racecourse.

3 The prosecution of the offences ultimately came on for hearing before the District Court on 21 March 2019. On that date, the accused were all acquitted of the alleged offences. The prosecutor, namely the National Transport Authority, subsequently lodged an application with the District Court seeking to appeal the acquittals by way of a case stated.

4 It should be emphasised that the case stated takes the form of an appeal, rather than a consultative case stated. A failure to distinguish between the two forms of case stated is said to lie behind the refusal of the Central Office to accept the paperwork subsequently lodged on behalf of the National Transport Authority.

5 The District Court Rules provide that a judge shall prepare and sign a case stated within six months of the date of application (O.102, r.12). The case law indicates that a failure to comply with this time-limit does not invalidate a “late” case stated. Importantly, however, once the six-month time-limit has expired, the party seeking the case stated is entitled to apply for an order directing the District Court to prepare same ( Irish Refining Plc v. Commissioner of Valuation [1990] 1 I.R. 568 at 572).

6 There was considerable delay in the preparation of the case stated in these proceedings. A signed version of the case stated was ultimately received by the National Transport Authority on 1 October 2020, that is, some eighteen months following the acquittal. Thereafter, the National Transport Authority was required to transmit the case stated to the Central Office of the High Court within fourteen days. It was also required to notify the intended appeal to the accused, who would be the respondents to the appeal.

7 Certain paperwork was lodged with the Central Office of the High Court on 12 October 2020. This paperwork was, however, rejected by the Central Office. The National Transport Authority maintains the position that the Central Office erred in refusing to accept the case stated. In particular, it is said that the Central Office, mistakenly, were seeking documentation which is only appropriate to a consultative case stated, as opposed to an appeal by way of case stated.

8 It would have been open to the National Transport Authority to make an application to the High Court for directions following upon the rejection of the paperwork by the Central Office. Directions could have been sought to the effect that the case stated had been properly lodged, or, alternatively, an extension of time could have been sought. Instead, however, the National Transport Authority chose to enter into a lengthy and repetitive exchange of correspondence with the Central Office. This was so notwithstanding that the fourteen day time-limit had long since expired. It was only on 10 March 2021, that is some five months...