[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	High Court of Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> High Court of Ireland Decisions >> D.P.P. v. O Mahony [2002] IEHC 50 (25 April 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2002/50.html Cite as: [2002] IEHC 50

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

THE HIGH COURT

2001 2494 SS

IN THE MATTER OF THE COURT (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACTS, 1961 – 1991

Between/

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

PROSECUTOR/RESPONDENT

-and-

KEVIN O MAHONY

ACCUSED/APPLICANT

Judgment of Mr. Justice Paul Butler delivered the 25th day of April, 2002

1.      This is a case stated by District Judge Uinsin MacGruairc dated the 6th of November 2001. The relevant matters are fully set out in the case stated as follows:-

“1. At a sitting of the District Court held at the Courthouse, Anglesea Street, Cork City on the 7th day of September 2001 the above named accused was charged with an offence under section 49 (4) and (6) (a) of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, as inserted by section 10 of the Road Traffic Act, 1994 as amended by section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1995 which said alleged offence was alleged to have been committed by the said accused on the 24th of March 2001 at Rafeen, Co Cork.

By summons dated the 3rd day of July 2001 the said accused was notified to attend at Cork City District Court on the 7th day of September 2001. The said summons is attached and is marked Appendix I.

“2. At the said hearing on the 7th of September 2001 and at the adjourned dates of the same, the 17th of September 2001 and the 5th of October 2001 the solicitor for the accused, James Grogan, raised certain objections in law to the said summons and to the jurisdiction of the Court to hear the case.

“3. The contentions of the said solicitor for the accused and of Superintendent Calnan and of the State Solicitor, John Brosnan were made in Court and further reduced to writing at my invitation and appear in the document attached hereto pinned together and marked Appendix II.

“4. On the 5th day of October I gave my decision as set out in Appendix III attached hereto in relation to matters raised and reserved my decision in relation to the said charge pending the determination of this Case Stated.

“5. The opinion of the High Court is respectfully sought on the following question:- Am I correct in this decision?”

2.      The “decision” referred to at paragraph 4 above amounted to a closely reasoned Judgment by the learned District Judge at the end of which he concluded that the date set and venue for the hearing of this summons were both valid and that he had jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

3.      The problem arose because the alleged offence was committed in Rafeen, Monkstown in the District Court Area of Carrigaline District Number 20. The complaint was made on the 12th of June 2001 and when the summons was issued as aforesaid it was made returnable to the District Court Area of Cork City District Number 19 on the 7th of September 2001. The District Court Districts and Areas (Amendment) and Variation of Days and Hours (Blarney, Carrigaline, Midleton and Cork City) Order, 2001 (Statutory Instrument Number 266 of 2001) is dated the 18th of June 2001 but contained the provision of the same was to come into operation on the 1st of September of that year. Article 5 thereof provides that “business transacted in the District Court that is initiated and not completed before the commencement of this Order shall be continued and completed as if this order had been in force at the time at which such business had been initiated”. It is argued that, at the relevant time, no business was ever contracted in District Number 20.

4.      Counsel for the Respondent argued, inter alia, that the District Court Clerk was faced with a situation where he could not make the summons returnable for a place that no longer existed.

5.      I accepted the argument and written submissions advanced on behalf of the Respondent and, in particular, I accept the submission in relation to the key word “business transacted” that the same included an application for and the issue of the summons in this case. I cannot express my findings any better than the Judgment of the learned District Judge above referred to.

6.      Accordingly, I answer the question posed in the Case Stated in the affirmative.