R (Shannon) v Justices of County Carlow

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 08 November 1900
• Date: 08 November 1900
• Court: Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)

Reg. (Shannon)

and

Justices of Co. Carlow (2).

Q. B. Div.

CASES

DETERMINED BY

THE KING'S BENCH DIVISION

OF

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND,

AND ON APPEAL THEREFROM IN

THE COURT OF APPEAL,

AND BY

THE COURT FOR CROWN CASES RESERVED.

1902.

Licensing Acts—Unfitness of applicant—Absence of objection—Justices acting on their own knowledge.

An applicant for the renewal of a publican's licence appeared at the annual licensing petty sessions in a drunken and riotous state, and had that same day, and before the same bench, pleaded guilty to several charges of drunkenness and disorderly conduct:—

Held, that the justices were at liberty to act (though no objection was raised) on their own knowledge of his character so derived, and to refuse the application (3).

Mandamus. Application to make absolute a conditional order for the issue of a writ of certiorari to remove and quash an order of the Justices of Carlow, made at Hacketstown Petty Sessions on 28th September, 1899, refusing James Shannon's application for the certificate required (3 & 4 Wm. 4, c. 68) to enable him to obtain a renewal of the publican's license theretofore held by him in Hacketstown, on the ground that the order of the Justices was bad and insufficient on its face, and was made without and in

excess of jurisdiction, and without any due or legal objection having been made to the grant of the certificate applied for, and for the issue of a writ of mandamus directed to said Justices to enter continuances upon, and to hear and determine the matter of, his application.

The conditional order was granted on the affidavit of the applicant, Shannon, who stated that he had attended with his solicitor at the Petty Sessions Court, and had produced the necessary certificate signed by six householders; that an objection previously lodged by the police had been withdrawn; that no opposition was made to his application, and no evidence tendered, but that the Court, “without any adjournment being asked for,” refused the application, their order being—“Publican's certificate refused on the grounds that they (the magistrates) have judicial knowledge that James Shannon has not been of good character within the last twelve months.” No notice of objection was before them.

The applicant further stated that he had served notice of appeal, but “unfortunately did not enter into the necessary recognisance,” and the Chairman of Quarter Sessions accordingly refused to entertain the appeal. He explained that the “misunderstanding” as to the recognisance “occurred owing to his having been bound over to keep the peace at the same Petty Sessions.”

As cause, an affidavit was filed by Mr. R. R. Kennedy, R.M., who stated that the police had served notice of objection to the application but had not proceeded therewith. The resident magistrate then stated:—

“I was aware that a number of charges (15) were on record against the applicant, and I had judicial knowledge of these several charges of drunkenness, disorderly conduct, and assault on the police of a serious character, as having occurred within the present year. These charges had been adjourned from time to time with the purpose of giving the applicant a chance of reformation; but, immediately preceding the application for renewal, Mr. E. T. Mulhall, the solicitor for the applicant, had pleaded guilty on behalf of the applicant to all the above-mentioned charges, and the magistrates made only one order thereon, namely, in respect of a charge of assault on the police, upon which

charge an order was made binding the defendant to enter into a recognisance to keep the peace, himself in £50 and two sureties of £25 each.

“The bench made this order only on the assurance of the defendant's solicitor that he had become a reformed character; but subsequently, during the sitting of the Court, the defendant was there present in a state of violent inebriation, and conducted himself in such a manner that four policemen were obliged to hold him down and ultimately to remove him from the precincts of the Court, it being impossible to place him in the lock-up attached to the barracks in consequence of an infectious disease having broken out there.

“In all said several charges mentioned in paragraph 3, to which said defendant pleaded guilty, only the one order to enter into recognisance was entered.

“I was also aware that six convictions were entered against the said James Shannon for drunkenness and disorderly conduct during the month of April, 1899.

“Almost immediately after the said order being made, the applicant for a renewal of said licence came before the Court; and, having judicial and personal knowledge of the above facts, and, believing in consequence of same that said James Shannon was not a person of good character, or one fit to carry on the business of licensed publican, the bench refused to sign the certificate of renewal sought for.”

An affidavit was also filed by the Clerk of Petty Sessions exhibiting the order made, on the 28th of September, 1899, upon the conviction of James Shannon for an assault upon an officer of the police, binding him to the peace for twelve months. The Clerk also deposed that there were at the time fifteen adjourned charges pending against Shannon, namely, nine charges of drunkenness and disorderly conduct, two of being drunk on his licensed premises, and three of drunkenness, as well as three fresh charges of drunkenness, etc., entered for hearing at the next petty sessions.

Ronan, Q.C., and W. Johnstone, for the applicant.

R. R. Cherry, Q.C., and W. Murphy, for the Justices.

[Counsel referred to Reg. (M'Kenney) v. Antrim JJ. (1); Dempsey'sCase (2); Marshall v. Justices of Co. Tyrone (3); Reg. (Giant's Causeway, &c., Tramway Co.) v. Justices of Antrim (4); Reg. (Morgan) v. Justices of Tyrone (5).]

The Court reserved judgment pending the decision of the Court of Appeal in M'Kenney'sCase (1).

Ronan, Q.C., and W. Johnstone, for the applicant.

R. R. Cherry, Q.C., and W. Murphy, for the Justices.

Lord O'Brien, L.C.J.:—

This is an application to make absolute a conditional order for certiorari to compel certain Justices in Carlow to grant a certificate of good character to a man named Shannon, so that he may procure a renewal of his licence as a publican. He applied to the magistrates in September of last year, 1899, for a certificate of good character; and the magistrates, being of opinion that he was a man not of good character, refused the application.

The affidavit upon which Shannon applied for a conditional order for a certiorari, instead of being a full and candid statement of the facts upon which the magistrates acted, wholly suppressed them. Those facts are set out in the affidavit of the resident magistrate, Mr. Kennedy. He states that Shannon, on the occasion of his application for a certificate of good character, came into...