State (at the prosecution of John Clarke) v Maura Roche

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1986
• Date: 01 January 1986
• Court: High Court

(H.C., S.C.)

The State (Clarke)

and

Roche

- Time limit - Summary jurisdiction - Summons - Issue - District Court - Six months time limit for making of complaint in summary offences - Whether complaint must within six months be brought to attention of person authorised to receive it - Whether consideration of complaint and issue of summons are administrative acts capable of being delegated -Rules of the District Court, 1948 (S.R. O. No.431 of 1947), s. 66 - Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851 (c. 93), ss. 10(4), 21.

The prosecutor garda applied to the Dublin District Court clerk's office for the issue of a summons charging the defendant with an offence under the Road Traffic Acts. The summons which was issued recited on its face that a complaint had been made to the clerk, and purported to be signed by him. On this summons being struck out without prejudice to its being re-entered, due to bad service, a fresh summons was applied for and issued, grounded upon the original complaint but purporting to be signed by a successor to the first District Court clerk. The face of this summons had been altered so that it did not recite that a complaint had been made to the issuing clerk. The respondent District Justice held that this summons was bad on its face and dismissed it, on the ground that it was not issued by the person to whom the complaint was made. The prosecutor obtained conditional orders of certiorari and mandamus quashing the respondent's order and commanding her to hear and determine the complaint. The defendant was made a notice party to the action and, at the hearing, challenged the validity of the summons on the additional ground that, owing to the manner in which the office of the Dublin District Court clerk was organised, no summons issuing therefrom could be shown to have been considered and signed by the clerk himself, rather than by some member of his staff whom he had authorised to affix his signature to summonses. On the motion to make absolute the conditional orders of certiorari and mandamus, notwithstanding cause shown, it was Held by Barron J., in allowing the cause shown and discharging the conditional orders, 1, that if a complaint has been validly made and it becomes necessary to issue a fresh summons through inability to proceed on foot of the first summons, it is not necessary that the fresh summons be issued by the person to whom the complaint was made. D.P.P. v. GillIR [1980] I.R. 263 considered. 2. That it is not...