BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
High Court of Ireland Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> High Court of Ireland Decisions >> Valentine -v- D.P.P. [2007] IEHC 267 (25 June 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2007/H267.html Cite as: [2007] IEHC 267, [2009] 4 IR 33 |
||
[New search] [Help]
|
Judgment Title: Valentine -v- D.P.P. Composition of Court: Birmingham J. Judgment by: Birmingham J. Status of Judgment: Approved |
Neutral Citation Number [2007] IEHC 267 The High Court In the matter of Section 2 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1857, as extended by Section 52(1) of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961 [2007] 236 SS betweenEdward Valentine Appellant/Accused and The Director of Public Prosecutions (at the suit of Garda Sean Breen) Respondents judgment of Mr. Justice Birmingham delivered on the 25th day of June, 2007 This is an appeal by way of case stated from a decision of Judge Ann Watkin, a judge of the District Court assigned to the Dublin Metropolitan District pursuant to s. 2 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1857 as extended by s. 51 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1951. The case stated is in the following terms:-
2. At the said hearing the Director of Public Prosecutions was represented by Garda Breen, the prosecuting Garda. Mr. Eoin Lawlor Barrister-at-Law represented the Appellant, instructed by Grainne M. Malone & Co., solicitors of 4 Main St., Tallaght, Dublin 24. 3. The prosecution case consisted of one witness, a Mr. Whelan, who gave evidence on oath that he had at the time of the incident worked as a security guard at Texas Homebase for three or four months. The witness gave evidence that on the date in question, the Appellant entered the above mentioned store, took a rotor saw and related accessories, placed them under his jacket and left the store, passing all points for payment, without paying for them. The witness also gave evidence of apprehending the Appellant, arresting him and searching him outside the store. He recovered the articles under the jacket of the Appellant. The Appellant did not go into evidence 4. No evidence was given of the existence of “Texas Homebase” as a legal person or that “Texas Homebase” was the owner of the articles as alleged. 5. At the close of the prosecution case, counsel for the Appellant sought a direction that there was no case to answer, as there had been no evidence given of the ownership of the articles alleged to have been stolen nor had there been evidence that those articles were taken without the permission of their owner. I took the view that the evidence to the effect that the witness was engaged by Texas Homebase at the Texas Homebase store, and that he was watching the Appellant walk past all points of payment and apprehended him when he did not pay, was sufficient evidence that the Appellant did not own the property, and therefore took it from an owner without consent and with the necessary intent. 6. Having heard the prosecutions case and as the defence did not go into evidence, I held that it had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the Appellant committed the offence of theft, contrary to s. 4 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001 with which he had been charged. Copy of the Warrant of Execution that issued consequent to the conviction of the Appellant was attached at annex 2. 7. The opinion of the High Court is sought on the question as to whether I was correct in law in convicting the Appellant on the evidence before the Court and in particular whether I was correct in law in doing so in the said circumstances.” While the High Court should not entertain a case stated involving the determination of issues of fact, the authorities are clear that the question of whether there is sufficient evidence in law to support a conviction is not a question of fact, but a question of law. See the decision of the Supreme Court in (The State) at the prosecution of Joseph P. Turley v. District Justice Cathal O’Floinn and James O’Connor [1968] 1 I.R. 245. In particular see the decision of Ó Dalaigh C.J. who at p. 251 observed:
Paragraph 4 of the case stated states clearly and unequivocally no evidence was given of the existence of “Texas Homebase” as a legal person or that “Texas Homebase” was the owner of the articles as alleged. The requirement as to evidence of ownership does not seem to have been considered by the Superior Courts but the issue has been the subject of consideration in the Circuit Court on a number of occasions, these decisions of long standing are of persuasive authority. In the case of The People (At the suit of the Attorney General) v. Patrick Harris, Irish Law Times Reports [1957] 91 ILTR 34. Judge Neylon in ruling on an application for a direction said there was not sufficient evidence of the existence of a company and that being so, the accused was entitled to a direction. It should be noted that the question of proving ownership was addressed in that case, albeit insufficiently to satisfy the trial judge. In contrast no such efforts were made in the present case. A similar conclusion to that reached by Judge Neylon was reached by Judge Sheehy in the case of People v. Cullen 81 I..L.T.R. & Sol. Jo. 45. Again, that was a case where quite elaborate efforts were made to satisfy the evidential requirements in relation to ownership. It is clear from the authorities that the production of a Certificate of Incorporation is not an absolute requirement. Rather what is required is evidence to show that the company carried on business in fact as such a company. See R. v. Langton [1876] 2 Q.B.D. 296, referred to with approval by Gavan Duffy P. in the case of Attorney General v. Smith [1947] I.R, p. 332. So far as the obligation to prove the property was owned and that the appropriation was without the owner’s consent it is the case of course that from time to time there may be difficulties in establishing an owner, the pickpocket in the crowded street being an obvious example and there the jury or judge will have to consider whether the evidence is such that the property in question is proved to be owned by the person unknown and that an absence of consent can be inferred. Here, though, the charge was laid as the property of “Texas Homebase” and the identical formula appears in the Warrant of Execution that issued consequent to the conviction. No information whatever was laid before the court in relation to the nature of the entity referred to or even as to its existence. Given the manner in which the charge was laid I am of the view that the judge was not correct to convict and in these circumstances I would answer the question posed by the learned judge of the District Court in the negative. |
