White v District Justice Hussey

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Barr
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1989
• Neutral Citation: 1988 WJSC-HC 820
• Docket Number: Judicial Review No 262/1987.
• Court: High Court
• Date: 01 January 1989

1988 WJSC-HC 820

THE HIGH COURT

Judicial Review No 262/1987.

WHITE v. HUSSEY

(JUDICIAL REVIEW)

BETWEEN/

THOMAS WHITE

APPLICANT

AND

DISTRICT JUSTICE GILLIAN HUSSEY

RESPONDENT

Citations:

CLARKE, STATE V ROCHE 1987 ILRM 309

RSC O.84 r21

MURPHY V AG 1982 IR 241

CONNORS V DELAP 1989 ILRM 93

Synopsis:

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Discretion

Exercise - Late application - Lack of merits - Valid legal point - Relief refused - ~See~ Criminal Law, summons - (1987/262 JR - Barr J. - 25/1/88) [1989] ILRM 109

|White v. Hussey|

CRIMINAL LAW

Summons

Issue - Validity - District Court clerk - Absence of power - conviction - Judicial review - Late application - Application refused - A summons, issued by a District Court clerk, was served on the applicant - It recited a complaint that he had committed a summary offence and required him to appear in the District Court on 23rd June, 1986, to answer the complaint - The applicant failed to appear in court on that day, whereupon the respondent District Justice convicted the applicant, imposed a fine and sentenced the applicant to a term of imprisonment in default of payment of the fine - The applicant failed to pay the fine and he was arrested and imprisoned - On 18/8/87 the applicant was given leave to apply for an order of certiorari quashing the order of conviction and the warrant in execution of that order - The applicant relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in ~The State (Clarke) v. Roche~ [1987] ILRM 309 in support of his contention that the summons had not been validly issued - Held, in dismissing the application, that it would not be in the interests of justice for the court to exercise its discretion to extend the period allowed by order 84, r.21, for applying for the relief claimed by the applicant or to quash the conviction: ~Connors v. Delap, infra,~ considered - Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986, Order 84, r.21 - (1987/262 JR - Barr J. - 25/1/88) [1989] ILRM 109

|White v. Hussey|

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Barrdelivered the 25th day of January, 1988.

2 On 23rd June, 1986 four summonses against the applicant came on for hearing before the respondent at Rathfarnham District Court. Each related to an alleged offence under the Road Traffic Acts. The applicant did not appear to answer the complaints, nor was he represented at the hearing. The respondent proceeded to hear them in his absence and he was duly convicted on all four summonses. Fines were imposed in each case with terms of imprisonment ranging from 14 days to one month in default of payment of the respective fines within one month from the date of imposition. The applicant did not pay any of the fines and on 9th June, 1987 four Warrants of Execution to commit to prison in default of payment of penalty were duly issued by the respondent. On 12th August, 1987 the applicant was arrested on foot of the warrants and he was committed to the custody of the Governor of Mountjoy Prison to serve thesentencestherein specified.

3 It appears from the applicant's affidavit which grounds these proceedings that, having been lodged in prison, he consulted his solicitor in consequence of which the legality of his detention was investigated. Mr. Staines discovered that the complaints contained in two of the summonses purported to have been received by a District Court Clerk who then issued the respective documents. The other two summonses were found to have been issued by a Peace Commissioner who purported to have received the complaints contained therein. It is not suggested that the applicant had knowledge of any defect in the summonses prior to his imprisonment on foot of the Warrants of Execution or that they had not been served on him in proper time. The only point raised on his behalf on this application was that the...