DPP(at the suit of Sergeant Emmett Treacy) v Thomas, [2006] IEHC 284 (2006)

Docket Number:2006 274SS
Judge:Quirke J.
 
FREE EXCERPT

Neutral Citation Number: 2006 IEHC 284THE HIGH COURT

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 2 OF THE SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT, 1857 AS EXTENDED BY S. 51 OF THE COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACT, 1951

2006 No. 274 SSBETWEENTHE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (AT THE SUIT OF SERGEANT EMMETT TREACY)PROSECUTOR/APPELLANT AND

GERARD THOMASACCUSED/RESPONDENT JUDGMENT of the Honourable Mr. Justice Quirke delivered the 2nd day of October 2006.

This is a case stated pursuant to s. 2 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1857, (as extended by s. 51 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961), by Judge Mary Collins, a Judge of the District Court. It has been made on the application of the Director of Public Prosecutions, (hereafter "the DPP") who is dissatisfied with the determination of the learned District Judge as being erroneous in point of law.

The case stated seeks the opinion of the High Court as to whether the learned District Judge was correct in law in striking out certain summonses which alleged the commission by the accused/respondent on 28th August, 2002, of certain offences contrary to the provisions of the Road Traffic Act, 1961 as amended.

The summonses were issued on foot of an application made on behalf of the DPP in November, 2003. They were struck out by the learned District Judge on the grounds that the application for the summonses was made after the expiry of the time limited in that behalf by statute.

FACTS

The facts as found by the learned District Judge are set out in the case stated and are as follows:

  1. The respondent came before the learned District Judge on the 14th May,

    2004, to answer four summonses which had been applied for on the 4th November, 2003, and which had been issued on the 23rd January, 2004. The summons recited the following charges:(1) That the respondent failed to produce a driving licence on 28th August, 2002, contrary to s. 40(1)(1a) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (hereafter "RTA 1691") and s. 201 of the RTA 1961 (as amended by s. 2 of the Road Traffic Amendment Act 1984):

    (2) That the respondent gave a false name on the 28th August, 2002, contrary to s. 107 of the RTA 1961 (as amended by s.3 of the Road Traffic Amendment Act 1984);

    (3) That the respondent failed to produce an insurance certificate on the 28th August, 2002, contrary to s. 69(1) of the RTA 1961 (as amended by s. 2 of the Road Traffic Amendment Act 1984);

    (4) That the accused was driving without a licence on the 28th August, 2002, contrary to s. 38(1) of the RTA 1961 and s. 102 of the RTA 1961(as amended by s. 2 of the Road Traffic Amendment Act 1984);

    (5) That respondent was driving without insurance on the 28th August, 2002, contrary to ss. 56(1) and (3) of the RTA 1961 (as amended by s. 3 of the Road Traffic Amendment Act 1984).2. When the summonses came before the District Court on the 14th May, 2004, an application was made on behalf of the respondent to strike out the summonses on grounds that on the 4th November, 2003, when the application was made...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL