The State (Taylor) v Wicklow Circuit Court Judge and Others
Jurisdiction | Ireland |
Judgment Date | 01 January 1953 |
Date | 01 January 1953 |
Docket Number | (1949. No. 10 S.S.) |
Court | High Court |
Prosecution for driving or attempting to drive mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place while drunk - Whether offence one known to the law - No proof offered of Road Traffic Act, 1933, having been brought into operation - Whether the fact that the Act was in operation ought to be judicially noticed- Habeas corpus - Certiorari - Road Traffic Act, 1933 (No. 11 of 1933), ss. 2, 30.
T. was prosecuted in the District Court and convicted, under s. 30 of the Road Traffic Act, 1933, of attempting to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place while drunk. He was sentenced to "one month's imprisonment with H.L." On appeal to the Circuit Court the prosecutor submitted inter alia 1, that the prosecution was not entitled to succeed in the absence of proof that Part III of the said Act (containing s. 30) had been brought into operation as provided by the Act. The learned Circuit Court Judge ruled, in effect, that he was entitled to take judicial notice of the fact that the said Act was in force at the material time; he, therefore, refused to accede to this submission. It was further contended on behalf of the prosecutor that the conviction was bad as (a) it did not state that the offence was a statutory offence or specify the relevant statute; (b) it did not show on its face that s. 30 of the said Act was in force at the time of the alleged offence; (c) it charged an offence not known to the law, and imposed a sentence not known to the law, viz., "to be imprisoned for one month with H.L." The Circuit Court Judge having dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence, the District Justice issued a warrant of execution of the sentence and the prosecutor was taken into custody and lodged in Mountjoy Prison. He thereupon obtained a conditional order of habeas corpus ad subjiciendumdirected to the Governor of Mountjoy Prison, and a conditional order of certiorari, directed to the Circuit Court Judge and the District Justice, to have the conviction by the District Justice, the affirmance by the Circuit Court Judge, and the warrant of committal brought up into the High Court for the purpose of being quashed. On the application...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
DPP v Cleary
...HEMP) REGS 1937 COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT 1924 S29 AG v PARKE UNREP SUPREME 6.12.2004 TAYLOYR, STATE v CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE OF WICKLOW & ORS 1951 IR 311 ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1933 S30 DPP v COLLINS 1981 ILRM 447 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1984 S6 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1984 (TREATMENT OF PERSONS IN CUTSODY ......
-
Mitchell & McCann v Member in Charge Terenure Garda Station
...THE STATE (AMDT) ACT 1998 S18 INTERPRETATION ACT 2005 S13 INTERPRETATION ACT 1937 S6 TAYLOR, STATE v CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE OF WICKLOW & ORS 1951 IR 311 DPP v COLLINS 1981 ILRM 447 DPP, PEOPLE v CLEARY 2005 2 IR 189 2005/19/3896 2005 IECCA 51 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ACT 1925 S2 DOCUMENTARY EVID......
-
Kelly v District Judge Dempsey & DPP
...1978 S26 ROAD TRAFFIC (AMDT) ACT 1978 PART III REGS 1978 SI 193/1978 CONSTITUTION ART 15.5 TAYLOR, STATE v CIRCUIT JUDGE OF WICKLOW & ORS 1951 IR 311 BUCKLEY v KIRBY 2000 3 IR 431 R (MARTIN) v MAHONEY 1910 2 IR 695 GRODZICKA v JUDGE NI CHONDUIN & DPP UNREP DUNNE 30.10.2009 2009/24/5893 2009......
-
DPP v Collins
...notice of the statutory instrument. 19An example is to be found in the case of The State (Taylor) v. Circuit Judge of Wicklow and Others 1951 I.R. 311. Taylor had been convicted in November in the District Court of attempting to drive a mechancially propelled vehicle in a public place, con......