The State (Attorney General) v Judge Roe

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1952
• Date: 01 January 1952
• Docket Number: (1949. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 S.S.)
• Court: High Court

H.C.

The State (Attorney General)

and

Judge Roe

District Court - Return for trial of accused person - Evidence of return for trial - District Court Order - Signature of Justice affixed by means of a rubber stamp - Validity of signature - Purported copies of order not in existence offered to Court of trial as evidence of return for trial - Oral evidence of order returning accused for trial - Jurisdiction of Circuit Criminal Court to try accused person - Whether return for trial necessary - Certiorari - Mandamus - Petty Sessions Act, 1851 (14 15 Vict., c. 93), ss. 14, 15 - Courts of Justice Act, 1924 (No. 10 of 1924), ss. 27, 64, 77B - Courts of Justice Act, 1926 (No. 1 of 1926), s. 6 - Courts of Justice Act, 1936 (No. 48 of 1936), s. 62 - District Court Rules,1948 (Stat. R. O. 1947, No. 431), rr. 20, 23, 57 (1), 63 (2), 83, 84, 85.

Four men accused of certain criminal offences appeared before the Circuit Criminal Court in Clonmel and objectionwas then taken, on behalf of the first to be arraigned, to the Court proceeding with the trial on the grounds (inter alia):—1, that there was no evidence before the Court to show that the accused had been duly returned for trial, and 2, that the documents transmitted to the County Registrar under the District Court Rules, r. 63, did not comply with the said Rule, inasmuch as the signature of the District Justice had been affixed by means of a rubber stamp facsimile. On the Judge's direction the District Court clerk attended with the Justice's minute book. After hearing argument, the Circuit Court Judge declined jurisdiction to try the indictment on the ground that there was no evidence of a return for trial. He refused to hear the oral evidence of the District Court clerk as to the decision pronounced by the District Justice or, alternatively, as to the relevant entry in the said minute book. The Circuit Court Judge further refused to proceed with the trial on the ground that the District Court Rules required a certified copy of the order returning the accused for trial to be transmitted to the Circuit Court and no such certified copy wss before him, and that the only admissible evidence of an order of the District Justice was the prescribed certified copy under the said Rules. The order of the Circuit Court Judge declared that, for the above reason, he had no jurisdiction; it did not, however, formally discharge the defendant from his recognisance to appear and take his trial. After an adjournment of the Court...