State (Barry and Others), The v District Justice O Roide in and Another

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1959
• Date: 01 January 1959

The State (Barry and Others) v. District Justice Ó RoideÁin and Another.

THE STATE (at the Prosecution of PATRICK BARRY and OTHERS)

and

DISTRICT JUSTICE CIONAOT Ó ROIDEÁIN ó roideáin and SUPERINTENDENT LEO MAHER (1)

High Court.

Criminal law - Conviction by District Justice - Record of conviction - Justice to "enter concisely in his Minute Book the effect of his decision" - Entry to be made and signed by Justice "upon pronouncing his decision in a case" - Contemporaneous signature of Justice affixed by means of rubber stamp to entry at foot of page of Minute Book - Validity of such signature in reference to other entries on page - Entry signed in manuscript by Justice subsequent to his transfer to another District - Whether such purported signature in excess of Justice's jurisdiction - Entry to be "taken to be the decision of the Court" - Essentials of entry - Whether entry adequate if made by reference to a previous entry - Criminal Justice Act, 1951 (No. 2of 1951), s. 21, sub-ss. 1 and 2 - District Court Rules, 1948 (S. R. & Ors., No. 431 of 1947), rr. 84, 85, as amended by District Court Rules, 1955 (S. I., No. 83 of 1955), rr. 9, 10 - Game Preservation Act, 1930 (No. 11of 1930), s. 3 - Protection of Animals Act, 1911 (1 & 2 Geo. 5, c. 27), s. 1.

P. B. and T. B. were charged before District Justice Ó R ó r., acting as District Justice for District No. 12, with 1, unlawfully killing or taking game, to wit, hares, within the annual close season for such game, contrary to s. 3 of the Game Preservation Act, 1930, and 2, cruelly ill-treating, torturing, infuriating or terrifying animals, namely hares, contrary to s. 1 of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911. L., C. and F. were similarly charged with aiding and abetting P. B. in both alleged offences. All five were convicted on both charges and fined. The contemporaneous entries of the convictions in the Justice's Minute Book were unsigned, otherwise than by the affixation of a rubber stamp facsimile signature of the District Justice to the bottom entry of each relevant page of the Minute Book—the entry relating to L. being the only one of the five to appear at the foot of a page. The other four entries were subsequently signed in manuscript by the District Justice, at a time when he had been transferred from District No. 12 to the Dublin Metropolitan District.

Held by the High Court (Haugh and Murnaghan JJ., Teevan J. dissenting) that as the entries relating to P. B., T. B., C. and F. when signed by the District Justice were no longer entries in "his Minute Book" within s. 21, sub-s. 1, of the Criminal Justice Act, 1951, his signature after transfer was ineffective to cause such entries to "be taken to be the decision of the Court" within s. 21, sub-s. 2, of that Act, and the entries must be quashed as having been signed without jurisdiction.

The entries relating to L. C. and F. (a) disclosed with varying degrees of clarity that they were being charged with aiding and abetting P. B. in whatever offences he was charged with committing, but the entries, when read by themselves, did not disclose clearly what those offences were, and (b) referred to the sums of money in fact imposed as fines on the three defendants, without specifying by whom or for what these sums were to be paid.

Held by the High Court (Haugh, Murnaghan and Teevan JJ.) that the said entries should in any event be quashed as being ambiguous and hence inadequate to comply with the requirement of s. 21, sub-s. 1, of the Criminal Justice Act, 1951, that "the Justice shall enter concisely in his Minute Book the effect of his decision."

Per Teevan J.:—The entries relating to P. B. and to T. B. should also be quashed, in as much as the nature of the offences of which they were convicted was described therein with insufficient particularity. Where an accused person is convicted in the District Court of a statutory offence, it is desirable in all cases that the District Justice should refer in his Minute Book or Charge Sheet to the particular section of the statute creating the offence in question.

Certiorari.

Applications by Patrick Barry, Michael Larkin, William Chaloner, James Finlay and Thomas Barry to make absolute five conditional orders of certiorari to bring into the High Court for the purpose of having quashed the convictions of the applicants at Kilmainham District Court on the 11th October, 1956, on the hearing of summonses brought against them by Superintendent Leo Maher that on the 10th day of July, 1956, at Bluebell, Clondalkin, within the District Court Area of Kilmainham, District No. 12, Patrick Barry and Thomas Barry (1) "Did unlawfully kill or take game, to wit, hares during the annual close season for such game contrary to s. 3, Game Preservation Act, 1930," and (2)"Did cruelly ill-treat, torture, infuriate or terrify animals, namely hares contrary to s. 1 of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911" and Michael Larkin, William Chaloner and James Finlay (1) "Did aid and abet one Patrick Barry in the commission of an offence, to wit, unlawfully kill or take game, to wit, hares, during the annual close season for such game, contrary to s. 22 Petty Sessions (Ir.) Act, 1851";(2) "Did aid and abet one Patrick Barry in the commission of an offence, to wit, cruelly ill-treat torture infuriate or terrify animals, hares: s. 22 Petty Sessions (Ir.) Act, 1851."

The five applicants were convicted of the said offences. A copy of the relevant columns of the Justice's Minute Book is shown (post) in the footnote (a) on page 150.

The entries relating to Patrick Barry and Larkin were the last two on a page of the Minute Book; the "Do." referred to therein as complainant being Superintendent Maher, who had been complainant in all the cases entered on that page, and whose name had been entered as that of the complainant in the entry at the head of the page, the phrase "Do."being inserted under the heading "Name and address of complainant" in all other entries on the page, all of which, except for the two relating to Patrick Barry and Larkin, related to charges under the Road Traffic Act, 1933. The entries relating to Chaloner and Finlay were the first two on the page succeeding that containing those relating to Patrick Barry and Larkin, and the entry relating to Thomas Barry was in the middle of a subsequent page.

Each of the three pages was stamped, in the column intended for the Justice's memorandum and signature to the last entry on the page (which was that relating to Larkin), with a rubber stamp facsimile signature of District Justice Ó Roideáin ó roideáin, intended to serve as a formal signature to all the entries on the page, but the entries relating to Patrick Barry, Chaloner, Finlay and Thomas Barry were not at the time otherwise authenticated by the signature of the District Justice. On the 21st January, 1957, after the District Justice had, with effect from the 26th December, 1956, been transferred to the Dublin Metropolitan District, the Justice affixed his signature in manuscript to all five entries.

On the 23rd November, 1956, each of the five prosecutors obtained in the High Court a conditional order of certiorarito bring up the convictions for the purposes of being quashed. The grounds set out in the orders, which were in identical terms, were as follows:—

1. The order purporting to convict the said prosecutor on each of said charges is bad on its face:—

(a) for duplicity in that it purports to find the said defendant guilty of offences in the alternative;

(b) as being vague, ambiguous and uncertain.

2. The decisions in said proceedings and the certified copy

(a)	"Name and address of complainant	Name and address of defendant	Substance of complaint	Justice's Memorandum and Signature.
	Do.	Patrick Barry, Baytown, Dunboyne	(1) Kill hares during close season (2) Cruelty to hares Bluebell, Clondalkin on 10/7/'56	I £10 Fine 14 d.p. II £10 Fine
	Do.	Michael Larkin Dunboyne	(1) Abet Patrick Barry in (1) above (2) do. in (2) above.	I £1 II £1 1 c.m. to pay

Attorney General at the suit of Supt. Leo Maher	William Chaloner, Bennetstown, Dunboyne	(1) Aid & abet Patrick Barry in unlawful killing and taking of game viz. hares (2) Aid & abet Patrick Barry in cruelly illtreating, torturing, infuriating or terrifying animals viz. hares Bluebell, Clondalkin 10.7.'56	I £1 II £1 1 c.m. to pay
Do.	James Finlay, Dunboyne	(1) (2) As Nos. 1 and 2 above	Do.
Supt. L. Maher	Thomas Barry, 54 Collins Ave. East Killester	(1) At Bluebell, Clondalkin did unlawfully kill or take game i.e. hares during the close season. (2) Did cruelly ill-treat, torture, infuriate or terrify such game. Bluebell, Clondalkin 10/7/56"	I £10 Fine 14 d.p. II £10 Fine

of the signed entry thereof in the Justice's Minute Book are bad on their face:—

(a) in that they purport to find the said defendant guilty of offences in the alternative;

(b) in that they purport to find the said defendant guilty of offences conjunctively;

(c) as being vague, ambiguous and uncertain;

(d) in that they do not show jurisdiction;

(e) in that they do not disclose that the said defendant was guilty of any offence;

(f) in that they purport to find the said defendant guilty of an offence not known to the statute or common law;

(g) in that they fail to show that the said District Justice came to any decision;

"(h) as not complying with the requirements of sub-ss. 1 and 2 of s. 21 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1951, Rule 84 (1) of the District Court Rules, 1948, as amended by Rule 9 of the District Court Rules, 1955, or s. 1 of 3 George 4, c. 23, (i) as not complying with the requirements of the statute or common law for the recording of a conviction."

On the 17th January, 1957, after the prosecutors had been informed that the District Justice did not intend to show cause, they applied to have the conditional orders of...