Woolf v O Gríobhta

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1953
• Date: 01 January 1953
• Court: High Court

Woolf v. Ó Gríobhta.

ERIC MAITLAND WOOLF

and

PÁDRAIG pádraigÓ GRÍOBHTA ó gríobhta

Mandamus - Practice - Application by prosecutor by person - Competency - Prosecution - Depositions - Whether accused person entitled in course of hearing in District Court to copies of depositions - District Court Rules,1948, Rule 85 - Rule providing for supply of depositions on payment of prescribed fees - Rule inoperative, fees never having been "prescribed" - Whether Rule ultra vires.

Mandamus.

This was a motion on notice to show cause against a conditional order for a writ of mandamus, dated the 24th March, 1952, directed to Pádraig Ó Gríobhta ó gríobhta, Acting Chief Clerk of the Dublin Metropolitan District Court, commanding him in accordance with his duty and authority in that behalf to furnish or cause to be furnished to the prosecutor, Eric Maitland Woolf, such copies as might be required by him of all depositions taken in the preliminary enquiry in the matter of a prosecution by The People (at the suit of the Attorney General) against the said Eric Maitland Woolf.

The conditional order was obtained on the affidavit of the prosecutor, who had been charged in the Dublin Metropolitan District Court with an indictable offence. The preliminary enquiry by the District Justice had occupied a number of days, had been adjourned from time to time, and had not concluded at the date of the prosecutor's application to the High Court for the said conditional order. Certain witnesses having already completed their depositions, a further witness was in course of being cross-examined by the prosecutor, who was conducting his defence in person, and at the end of each day's sitting of the Court the witness had had the written record of his evidence read over to him and the record had then been duly signed by him and by the District Justice. In these circumstances the prosecutor demanded that the respondent, who was at the time acting as Chief Clerk of the District Court in the absence of that official, should supply him with copies of the depositions of the witnesses who had completed their evidence, as well as copies of the depositions already made by the said witness.

The prosecutor, Eric Maitland Woolf (in person):—

In view of the provisions of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, s. 91, and Rule 85 of the District Court Rules, 1948, I submit that I am entitled to obtain the required copies of depositions at any reasonable time. The mere incidence of a change of personnel in the administration of the District Court Office should not operate so as to preclude me from my rights. [He referred to Ex parte Andrews(1); R. v.Churchwardens of St. James, Westminster(2)].

The fees intended to be prescribed not having been yet prescribed, the fee is nil.

During the taking of depositions, in respect of an alleged indictable offence the prosecutor, who was conducting his own defence, obtained in the High Court a conditional order of mandamus, directed to the acting Chief Clerk of the Dublin Metropolitan District Court, to supply him with copies of the depositions of the witnesses who had completed their evidence and of one witness who had been in the witness box for several days but had not yet completed his evidence. On a motion by the respondent to show cause against the said conditional order it was

Held, by Davitt P. 1, (dubitante) that there was no authority or practice precluding the granting of such an order to a prosecutor who sought same in person, without being represented by counsel;

2, that as acting Chief Clerk at the time at which the order was sought the respondent did not thereby become responsible for the carrying out of the duties indicated in Rule 85 of the District Court Rules, 1948;

3, that the fees intended to be prescribed for the purposes of Rule 85 never having been...