The State (Cuddy) v Mangan

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Barron J.,Mr. Justice Darcy
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1988
• Neutral Citation: 1986 WJSC-HC 261
• Date: 01 January 1988
• Docket Number: No.244SS/1985
• Court: High Court

CUDDY v. MANGAN

BETWEEN/

THE STATE (AT THE PROSECUTION OF WILLIAM CUDDY)

Prosecutor

And

DISTRICT JUSTICE JOSEPH MANGAN

Respondent

1986 WJSC-HC 261

No.244SS/1985

THE HIGH COURT

Synopsis:

CRIMINAL LAW

Trial

Delay - Summary trial - Commission of offence on 8/12/82 - Statutory period of six months allowed for making complaint - Complaint made within statutory period - Summons was issued in December, 1984, and served on defendant in January, 1985 - Conditional order of certiorari dated 29/4/85 quashing conviction of defendant - Natural justice - Fair procedures - Defendant prejudiced, in conducting defence, by delay in bringing defendant to trial - Conditional order made absolute - (1985/244 SS - D'Arcy J. - 1/7/85) [1988] ILRM 720

|The State (Cuddy) v. Mangan|

DELAY

Trial

Criminal trial - Summary offence - Fair procedures - Reasonable expedition required - Offence committed in December 1982 and defendant convicted in 1985 - Conviction set aside on certiorari - (1985/244 SS - D'Arcy J. - 1/7/85) [1988] ILRM 720

|The State (Cuddy) v. Mangan|

CRIMINAL LAW

Summons

Issue — Delay — Defendant prejudiced — Unconscionable lapse of time — Summons served two years after date of alleged offence — Issue of summons quashed — In January 1985, the prosecutor was served with a summons which had been issued in December, 1984, and which recited a complaint that the prosecutor had committed on 8/12/82 an offence contrary to s. 49 of the Act of 1961 — The complaint had been made within six months of the date of the commission of the alleged offence, as required by s. 10(4) of the Act of 1851 — The prosecutor obtained in the High Court a conditional order of certiorari quashing the issue of the summons unless cause were shown to the contrary by the respondent District Justice — The prosecutor then applied for an order absolute, notwithstanding the cause shown by the respondent — Held that the prosecutor was entitled to an order absolute: ~R. v. Oxford Justices; Ex p. Smith~ [1982] R.T.R. 201 and ~R. v. Watford Justices; Ex p. Outrim~ [1983] R.T.R. 26 considered — Petty Sessions (Ir.) Act, 1851, s. 10 — Road Traffic Act, 1961, s.49 — (1985/244 SS — D'Arcy J — 1/7/85) — -[1988] ILRM 720.

|The State (Cuddy) v. Mangan|

DELAY

Summons

Issue — Prejudice — Unconscionable delay — Two years — Complaint made within statutory period — Issue of summons quashed on certiorari —~See~ Criminal Law, summons —(1985/244 SS — D'Arcy J. — 1/7/85)

|The State (Cuddy) v. Mangan|

Citations:

DPP V GILL 1980 IR 263

DPP, STATE V ESMONDE UNREP KEANE 30.07.84

PETTY SESSIONS (IRL) ACT 1851 S10(4)

R V OXFORD JUSTICES, EX PARTE SMITH 1982 RTR 201 75 CAR 200

R V WATFORD JUSTICES, EX PARTE OUTRIM 1983 RTR 26 1982 CRIM LR 593

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961–1978 S49

1 The Application to have the Conditional Order granted by Barron J. made absolute was made before Mr. Justice Darcy and Judgment was given on the 1st July, 1985 .

2 For the Prosecutor: Paul O'Higgins B.L.

3 For the Respondent: Aindrias O'Caoimh B.L.

4 Darcy J. : This Case has been fairly met by the Authorities. In any organisation not everything runs smoothly. The prosecuting Garda; has not been at fault and has behaved up to the ordinary standards expected of him. That however is an entirely different matter to what I have to decide. In these Summary Cases, including those involving what are known as Drink Driving Offences, the law provides, by virtue of S.10 ss.4 of the Petty Sessions Act, 1851, that a complaint should be made within 6 months of the alleged commission of an Offence. This is only common sense. The legislative intent is clearly that matters disposed of summarily should be disposed of speedily and within a reasonable time after their alleged commission. Otherwise it would be very hard for a Defendant to meet a Case properly. In addition it should be said that an affence under S.49 of the Road Traffic Act 1961–1978 is a very serious matter indeed and carries automatic penalties including suspension from driving and possible large fines and imprisonment. A District Justice has no discretion regarding the automatic deprivation of a driving licence and this can be tantamount to depriving a man of his livlihood. The same principles however apply to all summary offences.

5 In this Case the Prosecutor was alleged to have committed an offence contrary to S.49 of the Road Traffic Act 1961–1978 on the 8th December 1982. A complaint is alleged to have been made within the statutory 6 month period and the Solicitor for the Defendant did not make an issue of this in the lower Court,

6 A Summons was issued in December 1984 and was served on the Prosecutor in January 1985, over 2 years ater the alleged offence. It was suggested by counsel for the Prosecutor that the very delay in bringing the matter to trial has the effect of depriving a man of the opportunity of producing reliable evidence in his Defence. An accused person might have been with friends on the night in question and who might have been able to give evidence but whose names may even be forgotten two years later.

7 ???query?????? is a Canon of Common Law. It works both ways in Civil Law, in Tort and in Contract a Plaintiff can be denied a remedy due to delay. It...