The State (Daly) v Ruane

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeO'Hanlon J.,
Judgment Date01 January 1988
Neutral Citation1987 WJSC-HC 398
CourtHigh Court
Docket NumberNo. 441 SS/1986
Date01 January 1988

1987 WJSC-HC 398

THE HIGH COURT

No. 441 SS/1986
DALY v. RUANE
STATE SIDE
BETWEEN/
THE STATE (at the prosecution of Eamonn Daly)
Prosecutor
-and-
DISTRICT JUSTICE JARLATH RUANE HIS HONOUR JUDGE FOE,PRESIDENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLICPROSECUTIONS
Respondents

Citations:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1967

DCR T55(1)

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1967 S7(1)

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1967 S6

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1967 S6(3)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1967 S7

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1967 S6(1)(b)

WILLIAMS, STATE V DPP & KELLIHER UNREP SUPREME 28.07.85

O'LAIGHLEIS, IN RE 1960 IR 93

DPP, PEOPLE V WALSH 1980 IR 294

DPP, PEOPLE V CAMPBELL 2 FREWEN 148

HALSBURY'S LAWS 3ED PARA 119

R V MIN OF HEALTH 1939 1 KB 232

R V PADDINGTON RENT TRIBUNAL 1974 1 448

R V MURPHY 1921 2 IR 190

BLAKENEY, R V ROSCOMMON 1894 2 IR 158

PETTY SESSIONS (IRL) ACT 1851

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1967 S8(1)

DISTRICT COURT (CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1967) RULES 1967 SI 181/1967 R1

DISTRICT COURT (CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1967) RULES 1967 SI 181/1967 FORM 12

HASTINGS, R V GALWAY JUSTICES 1909 43 ILTR 185

HALSBURY'S LAWS 4ED V11 PARA 1529

BATCHELOR & CO IRELAND LTD, STATE V O LEANNAIN 1957 IR 1

R V NORFOLK QUARTER SESSIONS 1953 1 QB 503

INDICTABLE OFFENCES (IRELAND) ACT 1849 S17

INDICTABLE OFFENCES (IRELAND) ACT 1849 S18

HEALY, STATE V BALLAGH UNREP FINLAY 22.04.83 1983/9/2691

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1967 S7(4)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1984 S23(3)(b)

Synopsis:

CRIMINAL LAW

Return for trial

Preliminary examination - Propriety - Judicial review - Principles applicable - Accused made several complaints about the manner in which the examination had been conducted - Accused sought order of certiorari quashing the order of the District Justice which directed that the accused be returned for trial on indictment - One complaint was that the District Justice had failed to note, contrary to rule 55(1) of the Rules of 1948, some of the objections made by the accused to the admission of some items of evidence - The second complaint was that the District Justice ruled that it was permissible to ask a witness whether he could identify in court anyone concerned with the charges made against the accused - The third complaint was that the District Justice had refused to accede to the accused's request, made at the conclusion of the hearing on the last of the four days allocated to the examination, for an adjournment to the next day to enable the accused to adduce further evidence - The fourth complaint was that a copy of the sworn information (grounding the charge) had not been served on the accused, as required by s.6(1)(b) of the Act of 1967, since the copy document received by him did not show a copy of the signature of the District Justice before whom the information had been sworn - The fifth complaint was that the authority of the officer who had endorsed for execution the warrant for the arrest of the accused had not been established - Held, in refusing to grant the relief sought, that the failure mentioned in the first complaint did not invalidate the order returning the accused for trial - Held that the rulings of the District Justice involved in the second and third complaints were correct - Held that there had been substantial compliance with s.6(1)(b) of the Act of 1967 as the identity of the District Justice before whom the information had been sworn had been disclosed at the taking of the depositions - Held, in relation to the fifth complaint, that the District Justice must have been satisfied that the officer had such authority or that the matter of his authority was not relevant to directing the accused to be returned for trial - Held that relief by judicial review must be confined within the limits outlined by established principles, particularly where it is sought to set aside an order returning an accused for trial - Examination of case law relating to judicial review of returns for trial - District Court Rules, 1948, r.55 - Criminal Procedure Act, 1967, ss.6, 7 - (1986/441 SS - O'Hanlon J. - 10/2/87) - [1988] ILRM 117

|The State (Daly) v. Ruane|

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Certiorari

Criminal law - Return for trial - Preliminary examination - Propriety - Limits of remedy by judicial review - ~See~ Criminal Law, return for trial - (1986/441 SS - O'Hanlon J. - 10/2/87) - [1988] ILRM 117

|The State (Daly) v. Ruane|

1

Judgment of O'Hanlon J.,delivered the 10th day of February, 1987.

2

The Prosecutor seeks an Order making absolute a Conditional Order of Prohibition granted by Mr. Justice MacKenzie on the 30th June, 1986 prohibiting the second and third named Respondents from entering on or proceedings with the trial of the Prosecutor for certain offences with which he is charged, and making absolute a Conditional Order of Certiorari granted on the same date, directing the first-named Respondent to send before the High Court for the purpose of being quashed an Order made by him on the 30th April, 1986 sending the Prosecutor forward for trial on the said offences.

3

In the grounding affidavit of the Prosecutor he challenges the validity of the Order sending him forward for trial on the following grounds:-

4

1. He objected to statements of witnesses taken from the Book of Evidence served on him in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967, being put to witnesses whose evidence was being taken on deposition and claimed that instead their original statements as made to the Gardai should have been put to them for verification purposes. He claims that this objection was wrongly overruled by the District Justice.

5

2. He claims that objections made by Counsel on his behalf on this and other grounds to the admissibility of various items of evidence were not noted by the District Justice on the depositions as required by Rule 55 (1) of the District Court Rules, save in a limited number ofcases.

6

3. He claims that witnesses were asked could they identify anyone on Court during the taking of depositions, which they had previously failed to identify the Prosecution at an identification parade, or had not been asked to attend such identification parade in which the Prosecutor was a participant, and objections by Counsel on his behalf to such questions were overruled by the District Justice.

7

4. He claims that when a Garda Superintendent was being examined concerning a search order issued by him, the original search order was not produced and identified by the witness but a copy thereof was put to him, notwithstanding objectior takenby Counsel on behalf of the Prosecutor, and that such objection was wrongly overruled by the District Justice.

8

5. He claims that the District Justice wrongly disallowed certain questions which the Prosecutor's Counsel wished to put to two of the witnesses whose evidence was taken on deposition.

9

6. He claims that application was made by Counsel on his behalf to the District Justice to direct the prosecution of the original exhibits in the case, and that this application was wrongly refuse by the District Justice.

10

7. He claims that when depositions had been taken, application was made on his behalf for an adjournment to enable two further witnesses to be called, whose names did not appear on the list of witnesses furnished under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967, and that this application was wrongfully refused by the DistrictJustice.

11

8. He claims that the District Justice wrongfully refused an adjournment to the following day to enable Counsel to prepare his submissions and wrongfully refused to make available copies of the depositions which had been taken.

12

9. He claims that the District Justice failed to consider the exhibits in the case before returning him for trial, in breach of the requirements of Sec. 7 (1) of the Act of 1967.

13

10. He contends that the copy of the sworn information served on him in purported compliance with the provisions of Sec. 6 (1) (b)of the Act of 1967 was defective and incomplete, in that it bore no signature or copy signature of the District Justice who signed it and he claims that the first-named Respondent should not have sent him forward for trial in those circumstances.

14

11. He further claims that the evidence in support of the charges brought against him was deficient in that no evidence was given to establish that the Superintendent of the Garda Siochana who purported to endorse for execution the warrant for the arrest of the Prosecutor was the person to whom the said warrant had been addressed.

15

12. Finally he claims that the first-named Respondent should have asked him if he had anything to say in answer to the charges preferred against him, before sending him forward for trial on the saidcharges.

16

An affidavit showing cause why the said Conditional Order of Prohibition and Certiorari should not be made absolute was sworn by Mr. Frank Keane, Assistant Solicitor in the office of the Chief State Solicitor, who acted on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions in the conduct of the preliminary examination of the charges against the Prosecutor before the first-named Respondent. At the hearing of the application to make absolute the said Conditional Orders notwithstanding cause shown, he was cross-examined on the contents of his said affidavit.

17

Having considered the contents of the two affidavits, the oral evidence of Mr. Keane, and the submissions of Counsel, I have reached the following conclusions regarding the various grounds,numbered as above, on which it is sought to challenge the validity of the Order sending the Prosecutor forward for trial in the Dublin Circuit Court :-

18

1. In my opinion it was permissible to put to witnesses who were giving evidence on deposition, copies of their statements of evidence, prepared in compliance with Sec. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967, so that they could confirm that it was a correct statement of the evidence to be given by each of them in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Reen v Murphy
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • October 18, 2017
    ...appeal by way of case stated to the High Court is appropriate.' 13 Subsequently O'Hanlon J. in the case of State (Daly) v. Judge Ruane [1988] ILRM 117 observed: 'Relief by way of certiorari is only appropriate in a limited number of cases. Generally speaking it involves the applicant in sh......
  • O'Shea v O'Buachalla
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • May 24, 2001
    ...APPLICANT/APPELLANT and JUDGE DONNCHADHA O'BUACHALLA AND THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLICPROSECUTIONS RESPONDENTS Citations: DALY, STATE V RUANE 1988 ILRM 117 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1967 S7(2) HEALY, STATE V DONOGHUE 1976 IR 325 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1967 S5(1) WILLIAMS, STATE V KELLEHER 1983 IR ......
  • Hughes v Judge Garavan
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • December 18, 2003
    ...ACT 1967 S8 HOLLAND, STATE V KENNEDY 1977 IR 193 SHERRY, STATE V WINE 1985 ILRM 196 AG, PEOPLE V O'BRIEN 1963 IR 65 DALY, STATE V RUANE 1988 ILRM 117 KILLEEN V DPP 1998 1 ILRM 1 DAVIDSON, STATE V FARRELL 1960 IR 438 ANISMINIC LTD V FOREIGN COMPENSATION COMMISSION 1969 2 AC 147 O'SHEA V O'BU......
  • Kirby v DPP
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • January 29, 2021
    ...to certain authorities in relation to the scope of judicial review by this Court of lower court decisions. In The State (Daly) v. Ruane [1988] ILRM 117 at 124, O'Hanlon J. noted that: “Relief by way of certiorari is only appropriate in a limited category of cases. Generally speaking, it inv......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT