The State (McLoughlin) v The President of the Circuit Court and District Justice O'Sullivan

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

(H.C.)

The State (McLoughlin)

and

The President of the Circuit Court and District Justice O'Sullivan

Notice of intention to prosecute served on defendant but wrong name contained therein - Summonses served on defendant subsequently also in wrong name -Summonses struck out - Fresh summonses served on defendant in correct name - Whether plea ofautrefois acquit applied - Conviction by District Justice of two offences and fine of £5 imposed -Appeal to Circuit Court - Conviction affirmed but order varied so as to record two convictions and a fine of £2 10 0 in respect of each - Whether an order imposing one penalty for two offences good - Whether s. 51 of the Road Traffic Act, 1933, creates one or two offences - Road Traffic Act, 1933 (No. 11 of 1933), ss. 50, 51 and s. 55 (2) (b).

M. was served with a notice of intention to prosecute for offences under ss. 50 and 51 of the Road Traffic Act, 1933, the notice being addressed in the name of O. He acknowledged receipt thereof in writing but signed with his correct name, M. The Garda serving the notice upon him then inserted on the face of the actual notice M. had signed, the correct name of the defendant. Subsequently M. was served with two summonses, alleging offences under each of the above sections, addressed in the name of O. At the hearing in the District Court objection was taken that the summonses contained the wrong name. Upon this being proved the District Justice struck out the two summonses, noting on his book "Defendant's name M." Subsequently M. was served with two further summonses in his correct name charging the same offences as had been previously charged. At the hearing of these two summonses in the District Court objection was taken on behalf of M. on the ground of autrefois acquit and also that there had been no sufficient notice ofintention to prosecute as the only one served had been in the wrong name and no other was or could have been validly served, owing to the permitted period for service having elapsed. The District Justice rejected both of those contentions and convicted M. under s. 51 and imposed a fine of £5. From that conviction an appeal was taken to the Circuit Court where the conviction was affirmed. The President of the Circuit Court, however, held that the order of the District Justice was bad as it convicted of two offences under s. 51 (which created two offences) and only imposed one fine. The President, therefore, varied the order and recorded two separate...