DPP v. Furlong [2011] IEHC 284 (9 June 2011)

High Court (Sheehan J) finds that issue of a summons in drink driving case was abuse of process, where seven related summonses were issued in a different District Court area, and holds that the District Judge did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. (Full text.)

Consultative case stated from District Court – s. 13(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1994 (as amended) – charge with refusal to give a breath specimen – reissue of seven summonses for various road traffic offences including drink driving and refusal to give specimen arising from same arrest – seven summonses struck out – eighth summons to different District Court area – delay of 18 months between incident and service of summonses – whether abuse of process – whether any reason for failure to bring all charges together in one location

The State (at the Prosecution of Robert Trimbole) v. The Governor of Mountjoy Prison [ 1985] 1 I.R. 550
Director of Public Prosecutions v. O Donnell [1995] 2 I.R. 294
Director of Public Prosecutions v. Cronin (Ex tempore, High Court, Geoghegan J., 25th July, 1994)
Cormack v. Director of Public Prosecutions & Farrell v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2008] I.E.S.C. 63
R v. Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Bennett [1994] 1 A.C. 42
Director of Public Prosecutions v. Nevin [2003] 3 I.R. 321
R. v. Fernandez [1997] 1 Cr. App. R. 123
O’Leary v. Cunningham [1980] 1 I.R. 367
Cormack v. Director of Public Prosecutions & Farrell v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2008] I.E.S.C. 63