People v McCormack

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 20 July 1984
• Docket Number: [S.C. No. 135 of 1984]
• Date: 20 July 1984
• Court: Supreme Court

The People v. McCormack

The People (at the Suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions)

and

Patrick McCormack and Another

[S.C. No. 135 of 1984]

Supreme Court

Criminal law - Order - Signature - Rubber stamp - Return for trial - Rules of court - Non-compliance - Transmission of documents to court of trial - Transmission after period allowed - Motion to quash indictment - Case stated - District Court Rules, 1948 (S.R. & O. No. 431 of 1947), rr. 13, 23 - District Court (Criminal Procedure Act, 1967). Rules, 1967 (S.I. No. 181), rr. 2, 38 - Courts of Justice Act, 1947 (No. 20), s. 16 - Criminal Procedure Act, 1967 (No. 12), s. 8.

Section 8, sub-s. 6, of the Act of 1967 provides that an order of a District Justice sending an accused person forward to the Circuit Court for trial on indictment shall be "in writing signed by the justice" and rule 38 of the Rules of 1967 states that the relevant District Court clerk shall transmit the order (inter alia) to the appropriate County Registrar within 10 days after the date of the order.

After a District Justice had conducted a preliminary examination of certain charges brought against the accused, the District Justice made an order returning the accused for trial on indictment in the Circuit Court. The signature of the District Justice on the order was an ink impression of the signature resulting from the use of a rubber stamp. The order was not transmitted to the Circuit Court within the period specified in r. 38 of the Rules of 1967. Before the accused was arraigned in the Circuit Court, he brought a motion in that court to quash the indictment on the ground that the proceedings had been invalidated by a failure to comply with the rules of court and that the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to conduct the trial of the accused. The Circuit Court judge adjourned the hearing of that motion when, at the request of the accused, he stated a Case for the determination by the Supreme Court of the points of law raised by the accused.

Held by the Supreme Court (O'Higgins C.J., Henchy and McCarthy JJ.), in ruling the points of law, 1, that a signature made by means of a rubber stamp was as valid as a manuscript signature and that, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the District Justice's signature had been duly affixed by him to the order prevailed.

The State (Attorney General) v. Roe [1951] I.R. 172 approved

2. That the failure to transmit the order of the District Justice to the Circuit Court within the period prescribed by the Rules of 1967 did not invalidate the order or affect the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court in the proceedings before it.

Cases mentioned in this report:—

¹ The People (Attorney General) v. McGlynn [1967 I.R. 232.

² The State (Bloomfield) v. Neylon (High Court: 6th February, 1984).

³ Corley v. Gill [1975] I.R. 313.

⁴ The State (Attorney General) v. Roe [1951] I.R. 172.

⁵ The State (McCarthy) v. Governor of Mountjoy Prison (Supreme Court: 20th October, 1967).

⁶ Bennett v. Brumfitt (1867) L.R. 3 C.P. 28.

⁷ The State (McKay Bruce) v. Shannon (Supreme Court: 10th May, 1948).

Case Stated.

The accused, McCormack, brought a motion in the Circuit Court for an order quashing an...