The State (Hardy) v District Justice O'Flynn

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1949
• Date: 01 January 1949
• Court: High Court

High Court.

The State (Hardy) v. District Justice O'Flynn.

THE STATE (at the prosecution of JOHN CHARLES HARDY)

and

DISTRICT JUSTICE CATHAL O'FLYNN (1)

Criminal law - Two summonses - Using violence to and intimidating with view to compel person to abstain from doing an act which she was legally entitled to do - Using threatening, abusive and insulting words and behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or by which a breach of the peace might be occasioned - Gist of offences - Whether more than one offence charged in each summons -One conviction and penalty in respect of each summons - Whether convictions bad for duplicity - Uncertainty - Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict., c. 86) s. 7 -Dublin Police Act, 1842 (5 & 6 Vict., c. 24), s. 14 (13).

Certiorari.

The prosecutor herein was an insurance agent and he was on strike during the month of July, 1947, together with a number of other employees of various insurance companies. On the 17th July, 1947, arising out of certain incidents which took place on that date, he was charged with the following offences:—1. That he did wrongfully and without legal authority, between 2 and 3 p.m. on the 17th July, 1947, at Upper Rathmines Road with a view to compel Mrs. Violet Tully, 53 Belgrave Square, Rathmines, to abstain from doing that which she had a legal right to do, viz., to transact business with the offices of the Irish Assurance Company of 22 Upper Rathmines Road, use violence to and intimidate said Mrs. Violet Tully by shouting in a loud voice at her "Don't you know there is a strike on there? You should be damn well

ashamed of yourself. You are not entitled to go in there while there is a strike on," thereby putting her in dread and fear.

2. That he did at Upper Rathmines Road, a public place in the City of Dublin, at above time and date, make use of threatening, abusive and insulting words and behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or whereby a breach of the peace might be occasioned.

He was tried before the District Court and was convicted of the two offences. In respect of the first charge, he was fined £5 and ordered to pay £3 3s. 0d. witness's expenses to Mrs. Violet Tully and in default of payment of those sums within seven clear days, he was sentenced to twenty-eight days' imprisonment without hard labour. He was also ordered to enter into recognisances to keep the peace and to be of good behaviour for a period of twelve months, and in default to be imprisoned for twenty-eight days without hard labour.

Objection was taken on behalf of the defendant in the District Court that the District Justice had convicted him twice for the same offence, and also that the District Justice had no jurisdiction to award witness's expenses.

The contention of the prosecutor was that the first charge on which he was convicted was bad for duplicity as it had been preferred under s. 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, and did not state in respect of which offence therein the defendant was charged. The purported conviction on the charge was bad for uncertainty, as not showing of which of the two separate offences he was convicted or whether the conviction was in respect of both; that on the second charge the conviction was also bad for duplicity having been preferred under s. 14 (13) of the Dublin Police Act, 1842, and he also contended that the conviction was bad for uncertainty as not showing of which of the two...