The State (Hughes) v Neylon

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Finlay P.
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1982
• Neutral Citation: 1982 WJSC-HC 1081
• Court: High Court
• Date: 01 January 1982

1982 WJSC-HC 1081

THE HIGH COURT

STATE (HUGHES) v. NEYLON & SHEEHY

THE STATE AT THE PROSECUTION OF KATHLEEN HUGHES

Prosecutor

and

HIS HONOUR JUDGE THOMAS NEYLON, PRESIDENT OF THE CIRCUITCOURT AND HIS HONOUR JUDGE DAVID SHEEHY

Respondents

1 Judgment delivered on the 3rd day of December1981 Finlay P.

2 This was an application to make absolute notwithstanding cause shown a Conditional Order of Certiorari made by Mr. Justice Hamilton on the 2nd of October 1981 directing that an Order made by the learned President of the Circuit Court on the 17th of August 1981 that the Michaelmas Sittings of the Circuit Court to be held in the town of Monaghan should be held at the Courthouse Cavan commencing on the 6th of October 1981 and a further Conditional Order of Prohibition directed to His Honour Judge David Sheehy prohibiting him from entering upon the trial of the Prosecutrix at Cavan. The facts out of which the application arises are as follows.

3 On the 6th of May 1981 the Prosecutrix was by Order of the District Justice sitting in Monaghan sent forward for trial on certain indictable offences the order directing that the trial be had at the next sitting of the Circuit Court in Monaghan. The Prosecutrix was released on bail and the trial would, in the ordinary way, have commenced at the sessions to be held in Monaghan on the 19th of May 1981.

4 On the 12th of May 1981 the courtroom and the Circuit Court office in the Courthouse Monaghan was destroyed by fire.

5 On the 19th of May 1981 His Honour Judge Sheehy sat in his chambers at the courthouse in Monaghan in lieu of the courtroom and remanded the Prosecutrix on continuing bail to the next sitting of the Circuit Court in Monaghan. No formal written order of that remand was apparently madeup.

6 On the 17th of August 1981 the learned President of the Circuit Court with the consent of the Circuit Judge permanently assigned to the Northern Circuit who isJudge Sheehy ordered all business listed for trial and hearing in the Circuit Court at the Courthouse Monaghan commencing on the 6th of October 1981 to be tried and heard at the Courthouse Cavan commencing on the 6th of October 1981. As appears in the affidavit of the learned President of the Circuit Court this Order was made pursuant to the powers vested in him by Section 10 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1947.

7 It was contended on behalf of the Prosecutrix that having been returned for trial to the Circuit Court sitting at Monaghan that she had a right to be tried in Monaghan. Consequently, an order made by the learned President under Section 10 of the 1947 Act after the order returning her for trial does not affect that right. It was pointed out that pursuant to the provisions of Section 26 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961 it would have been open to the Director of Public Prosecutions to apply for the transfer of her trial making such application to Judge Sheehy as Judge of the Northern Circuit and seeking the transfer to anyotherplace on that circuit. If such an application had been made it was argued that the Prosecutrix could have been heard on it. The merits of her objection to a transfer to Cavan could have been considered whereas of course she was not heard nor is there any statutory provision for her to be heard in relation to the general order made by the President of the Circuit Court under Section 10 of the 1947 Act.

8 It was further submitted on behalf of the Prosecutrix that the right to be tried in Monaghan arising from the order returning her for trial was of value to the Prosecutrix. She, residing in the town of Monaghan, would find attendance for her and for her witnesses at a trial in the Courthouse in Monaghan more convenient than in Cavan and secondly, it was contended that having regard to the provisions contained in the Juries Act of 1976for the calling of a jury panel from the Electoral List within the county, that she prima facie has a right to be tried by persons from County Monaghan and that references in the decision of the Supreme Court De Burca .v. The Attorney General 1976 I.R. for the necessity to draw a jury panel from the community should be construed as...